Reality Check: Do you know how to shoot?

[KodiakBeer]

I guess what I am trying to say is I see a lot of "informal" training at public ranges that is suspect. Not trying to come off as a critic, but people who help others really do need to be aware of where there are in their own learning curve.

Leave it up to the newbie to watch the other shooters and seek help from those who know what they are doing. Being new to guns doesn't mean you're stupid. It doesn't take a genius to see that one guy is shooting foot-wide groups at seven yards while another guy is shooting palm-sized groups at 20 yards.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Do I know how to shoot? I would say yes, to an extent. I'm OK for closer shooting, I have limitations that no doubt training would improve. There is no way I could group any thing like palm sized at 25 yards.

 

[bomberbill357]

Nope, I am continually learning something new and I constantly search out those that know more athan me. At least those that are crediable.

 

[orangeninja]

Leave it up to the newbie to watch the other shooters and seek help from those who know what they are doing. Being new to guns doesn't mean you're stupid. It doesn't take a genius to see that one guy is shooting foot-wide groups at seven yards while another guy is shooting palm-sized groups at 20 yards.

I agree, the only place to offer unsolicited advice is on the internet

I do not offer unsolicited advice in gun stores, on the range, etc; but it is funny because almost every time I go to one of the smaller gun stores in my area there is going to be some hang around guy (non-employee) who just can't wait to pour their wealth of gun knowledge on the unsuspecting passerby. You know the types, the ones who tell every new shooter that the sound of a shotgun being chambered instantly results in bad guys crapping themselves, etc.

 

[Ankeny]

Leave it up to the newbie to watch the other shooters and seek help from those who know what they are doing.

That's the problem, a real newbie has no frame of reference. I know people who shoot really small groups using cup and saucer. I guess that makes them suitable instructors?

Here is another example. I used to shoot High Master PPC double action only with the old style iso stance. I can shoot a six to eight inch group at 50 yards with overlapping locked down thumbs, elbows locked, knees locked, majority of my weight on my heels. Should a guy like that be teaching that technique to a new shooter interested in developing a solid self defense shooting platform?

 

[Odd Job]

So my open ended question here (feel free not to answer…just mull it over) but have you ever paid for training or otherwise received professional training on basic hand gunning? Forget combat techniques, forget tactical this or that, I’m talking about the base lined mechanics such as consistent trigger pull, sight alignment, hand positioning, shooting stance (Weaver, Isosceles or Modified Isosceles). Can you unequivocally say “my shooting stance is (fill in the blank)” and state why? Have you put as much thought and consideration into your shooting technique and why you have chosen to use that technique as you have in the caliber and brand of gun you carry? Have you spent as much money or even a fraction of the money on formal training as you have on your gun (or guns) or even your holsters for that matter?

In terms of my pistols, I can answer yes on all counts (but that was in South Africa).
In terms of my two rifles here in the UK (both are .22LR) the base cost of those guns plus their accessories exceeds the cost of the three rifle courses I did in South Africa.
I have had one formal training session on sporting clays but I don't own a shotgun.

 

[JohnKSa]

I know people who shoot really small groups using cup and saucer. I guess that makes them suitable instructors?

Depends on what you mean by "suitable instructor". Clearly a person who can't shoot can learn something from someone who can shoot even if the "instructor" doesn't have perfect technique.

The ideal situation is to get information from a wide range of knowledgeable and proficient shooters/instructors and pick and choose the parts that apply to you as an individual student rather than to pick a single "instructor" and "swallow whole" everything you're told.

It starts by getting SOME instruction and then going from there. Unfortunately the preferred approach for most gun owners seems to be to not even to take that first step.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

This may be slightly off topic, or right on topic. Have you ever noticed the elitist attitude of gun owners. It seems a huge majority of you guys on this board either know everything, are better then every other gun owner, and have never been new at guns?

In EVERY post this is some form of this. This thread exactly. "i was looking around at all the people i was better at". Thats what your saying.

I dont see it in anything else. In all the forums i go to, gun forums are horrible for this. I think it has to do with guns being so personal to people. NOt trying to bash op, i get what your saying, maybe i should of started another thread on it.

Consider there may be somewhat of a self-filtering effect here. Those who post on THR have taken the extra step to search out a gun forum to ask questions and read answers. That is a step that most gun owners do not make. The fact that people are here shows they are probably a little more into shooting and getting better at it than most. Those who don't care about shooting or practicing, and just own a gun to own one, aren't on this forum. They are also not out at the range honing their skills. So you're naturally going to see more gun owners on this forum who believe they are skilled in some way compared to those who are not on this or similar forums. Because they're part of the group that cares more about shooting.

 

[BP44]

After reading this thread I feel that its more important for folks to get out and burn some ammo to figure out what they are capable of. My father swears he is the next dirty harry but I would guess he couldnt manage 6 shots on a 12'' plate @ 10 yds with any time limit Many people like to brag about there shooting prowess but few have tested there skills in a stressfull or even timed environment. I use whatever shooting stance I can "weaver when I can" but I have tried and learned to shoot from cover or concealment. I wont say I am great shot or trained by the best but I can say I shoot a great deal more than the rest of the "avid" shooters and I have a can do attitude

 

[Hangingrock]

What I’ve noticed is that usually there are no individuals on the 50yd line, occasionally individuals on the 25yd line, and the 7yd line is the most used. That’s been my experience at six different out door shooting club organization ranges over a period of forty-one plus years.

I very seldom shoot indoors but when I have I’ve noticed shooters predominantly do not shoot at the maximum distance of the range facility. They tend to bring the targets in close more or less spitting distances.

 

[Sam1911]

...shooters predominantly do not shoot at the maximum distance of the range facility. They tend to bring the targets in close more or less spitting distances.

Yup. If you anticipate being attacked from 50 yards away maybe you should practice at 50 yards. If you believe more in the "3 shots - 3 yards - 3 seconds" rule, maybe you practice for that.

A fair number of folks have been taught the fundamentals of sight picture, trigger control, and natural point of aim, and are acceptably accurate on the bullseye range with their pistol, but do scary things when drawing a gun from a holster, and can't get an aimed shot off in under a second and a half, let alone shoot and move at the same time.

Of course, the opposite is true. Someone who's bought their first gun for defense, and has been to Tom Givens' classes, or Gunsite, even -- and has practiced what they were taught -- may be very capable of defending themself at social distances with a hangun. They'd be pretty hopeless, though, at Camp Perry. Or at skeet, or 3-position small-bore rifle, etc. So the question is complicated.

 

[Hangingrock]

Yup. If you anticipate being attacked from 50 yards away maybe you should practice at 50 yards. If you believe more in the "3 shots - 3 yards - 3 seconds" rule, maybe you practice for that.

Yup.There are those that practice only at three yards and they are still hopeless.

 

[Griffin2020]

Did the military have you shooting that much handgun ammo, or was that on your own time/dime? Most accounts we see indicate that very few military personnel get anything beyond an extremely basic familiarization with a sidearm.

Yes to both. I was involved in a "special situation" while in the military, and we received a large amount of training, as well as extensive use of firearms at the range. In addition, we were allowed to use the range on base with personally purchased ammo and to shoot with the local constabulary (who rented the range from the USN).

 

[mavracer]

Yup. If you anticipate being attacked from 50 yards away maybe you should practice at 50 yards.

For some everything handgun doesn't revolve around self defense.

 

[Sam1911]

Yup. If you anticipate being attacked from 50 yards away maybe you should practice at 50 yards.

For some everything handgun doesn't revolve around self defense.

Certainly true. Actually, that's a large part of the point I was making in post 21.

It is also important to ask not just "do you know how to shoot?" But, do you know how to shoot the way you (might) need to? Or want to?...

Someone who's bought their first gun for defense, and has been to Tom Givens' classes, or Gunsite, even -- and has practiced what they were taught -- may be very capable of defending themself at social distances with a handgun. They'd be pretty hopeless, though, at Camp Perry. Or at skeet, or 3-position small-bore rifle, etc. So the question is complicated.

Plenty of folks can say they know how to shoot -- because the Boy Scouts or the Army taught them how. They're right ... to a point. There's lots of kinds of training in the world. You'd need a whole lot of free time (and cash) to say you were a truly well-rounded and accomplished shooter.

There's a few things I know... but I'm just an enthusiastic amateur with the majority of shooting types.

(Bolded for emphasis.)

You really can't look at the fact that someone's only practicing at 7 yards and say they're obviously deficient in their practice or skill level. Or at the fact that they're shooting at 50 yards and say they're really prepared to do what might need done with a handgun.

It isn't all about group size. But is isn't ALL about speed, either. That's why the question is so complicated.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yup. If you anticipate being attacked from 50 yards away maybe you should practice at 50 yards. If you believe more in the "3 shots - 3 yards - 3 seconds" rule, maybe you practice for that.

I practice at the longer distances because it shows up flaws in my technique that aren't readily apparent at 3 yards.

It has very little to do with how I expect to use my gun in a self-defense situation.

You really can't look at the fact that someone's only practicing at 7 yards and say they're obviously deficient in their practice or skill level.

You certainly can if they're shooting slowfire groups a foot in size at 7 yards.

That's why the question is so complicated.

It's complicated if you try to eat the whole elephant at once.

It's simple if you take it a bite at a time--it just takes awhile.

The first "bite" is getting the fundamentals down. Starting off by seeing how fast you can crank off 3 rounds at 3 yards is not helping build fundamental skills.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Never gotten formal training for anything short of 4H and yet I'm still able to ring the gong at 200 yards with a handgun. All of my techniques and skills come from research and then me testing it to find what works best. From what I've seen, I'm a better shot with handguns than most of the people I've seen at the range. Not being able to hit a 1x2 steel target at 20 yards is pretty bad.

 

[k-frame]

I’m talking about the base lined mechanics such as consistent trigger pull, sight alignment, hand positioning, shooting stance (Weaver, Isosceles or Modified Isosceles).

Yes, from a former LEO and for both myself and my wife. But it was only one class and I could always use more (And more range time).

 

[Sam1911]

You certainly can if they're shooting slowfire groups a foot in size at 7 yards.

Right, but I was referring to someone who simply said that's the distance he saw people shooting, not reporting on their accuracy, speed, technique, or results.

That's why the question is so complicated.

It's complicated if you try to eat the whole elephant at once.

It's simple if you take it a bite at a time--it just takes awhile.

I think you misunderstood my point. I don't mean proficiency is complicated. I meant that the question "do you know how to shoot" has various answers to different people.

You can be very good at one thing but completely useless at another.

You may be proficient at defensive style shooting, but not have mastery of precision work. You may, conversely, have flawless "fundamentals" and yet not be very capable of fighting with a firearm.

Those folks on either side of the equation like to cast aspersions at the other.

 

[JohnKSa]

You may be proficient at defensive style shooting, but not have mastery of precision work. You may, conversely, have flawless "fundamentals" and yet not be very capable of fighting with a firearm.

Ultimately shooting is about hitting what you aim at.

Artificially limiting the range and inflating poor accuracy scores for those who can empty their gun extremely rapidly may make a person think they are proficient at "defensive style shooting", but if they're put into a situation like the one Brandon McKown or Mark Wilson encountered, or like the officers at the North Hollywood shooting were thrust into, they will suddenly realize that they can't hit what they need to hit to win. The problem is that we can call it "defensive style shooting" but the reality of true defensive shooting isn't easy to put in a box. Sure, a lot of the time it happens very fast and very close, but not always.

The bottom line is that while it may be more fun to blast away at close range, without the fundamentals, the shooter may eventually find that they're lacking in what they need to win their own individual/unique defensive encounter. The fact that they're "proficient at defensive style shooting" notwithstanding.

Similarly, a person who can put them all into tiny groups at 50 yards but can't fire a fast followup shot to save his life, who has no idea how to shoot from behind cover, draw his gun without fumbling around, or reload his gun in a hurry without dropping his magazine, could find that he's sadly lacking when things go south. His impressive ability to put slow shots into the high-scoring target rings consistently won't help him if he can't get his gun out in time to make a difference.

It's warm and fuzzy and happy to tell one shooter: "You're good at precision." and another shooter: "You're good at defensive style shooting." but that ignores the fact that both of them may lack critical skills needed to save their lives.

Of course it's all moot if the goal is just to have fun.

 

[Crex39]

Some people are more "natural shots" than others, that being said some formal training should be obtained. One of the best formal training situations is the military. Some on the board might question the validity of military training, but when you carry a rifle for 9 weeks of basic training except for while eating, and are constantly "forcefully reminded" of such things as muzzle awareness, keeping the safety engaged while not shooting, keeping your weapon clean, and keeping your booger hook off the bangswitch, those habits do wear into you. Plus the pre range training with washer drills, correct tear down and reassembly and the standards for cleaning after shooting reinforced with time in the front leaning rest position contribute to positive habits with a firearm. Target acquisition, sight picture, breathing and trigger squeeze also help and are the key to the fundamentals of marksmanship. There is also the ability to handle malfunctions trained. Once you have the fundamentals down, self teaching through DVD's and on line or print reference is a lot more meaningful. Like any sport or hobby, those with some sort of formal training tend to be ahead of the game, but there are those who never had it, took a common sense approach and practice, practice, practice, and these people become some pretty good shots. My recommendation is the "rifle club" at Fort Knox. They have some challenging ranges, a great fitness program, and about one in two members go on to win an all expense paid 12 month vacation to some third world crap hole to show off the skills you learn.

 

[Dmitri Popov]

I shift between stances, Weaver and Isosceles.
My dad taught me pistol shooting, with his duty pistol, a Glock in .40 cal.
He started me out in a very basic Weaver, just teaching me the push-pull techniques and such. Later moving me on to more tactical and combat oriented stances and techniques. The fun part was/is that every time he's sent to a new training class, I get a new training class as well, lol. The guys at Sabre Tactical are pretty bad A, and I indirectly learned a fair bit off those guys through dad.

 

[Tim Burke]

I agree with Sam. Until we define what knowing how to shoot is, we can't answer the question.
The other point is that the conditions determine the quality of the shooting; grading is on a curve. 2.5" slow fire 1 handed with a 1911 @ 50 yards is world class. The same group, slow fire at 3 yards is nothing special.
Shooting isn't easier at 3 yards, but getting small groups is. However, if you are shooting at 3 yards, chances are you are working on something besides bullseye accuracy, so you need to be graded on something other than just the size of your groups.

 

[Ankeny]

Until we define what knowing how to shoot is, we can't answer the question.

I completely agree. But people will readily answer the question depending on their vision of "shooting". We all see comments like, fast splits, COM hits, combat accuracy, and so forth. What does all of that mean? Beats me.

You'd need a whole lot of free time (and cash) to say you were a truly well-rounded and accomplished shooter.

Absolutely true. Few will ever travel that road.

 

[Sam1911]

...but that ignores the fact that both of them may lack critical skills needed to save their lives.

Or, to be completely fair to all points of view, to accomplish whatever they wish to do with a fireram. As some members routinely point out, it isn't all about fighting or dying. What about IHMSA, or F-class? Or steel challenge?

Of course it's all moot if the goal is just to have fun.

Yes, if maing noise and experiencing recoil = having fun.

I know I would be snickered at if I tried to throw back on the old 3-position gear and shoot the A-36 target again. I don't have what it takes because it's been so long since I practiced those skills. Funny thing, though, in a very absolute answer to the original question -- I do know how to shoot that discipline. I just can't perform those skills well anymore.

A wrinkle I hadn't considered...