Times change, do you?

[rhino]

It's interesting to me how some simple words often mean such different things to different people.

To me, "training" is an all-inclusive term that refers to everything you do achieve your goal. A boxer doing roadwork or hitting a heavy bag isn't in a class with supervision, but he sure as hell is "training" in the truest sense of the word.

I prefer to use the word "instruction" for what happens in the classes we all apparently do. It's less ambiguous and in my mind, more accurate.

"Training" then includes instruction, practice, competition (testing), and other elements like physical conditioning, visualization, etc. Anything you do to meet your goals is "training."

[rat31465]

I understand where your thoughts on this are coming from and have always believed that if an idea is useful it will survive the litmus test of time.
On the otherhand an idea that turns out to be a bad one usually gets weeded out in a short amount of time.

Someone wiser than I once said..."Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes."
If we are lucky enough to survive these lessons then hopefully we learn something from them and are then able to make corrections which keep us from repeating them.

Thats what I like about M4Carbine....There are so many informed opinions on this forum that if you go into the threads with an open mind and a closed mouth...there is much to be learned without placing oneslf in too much danger.

Anyone stuck on training tactics from the past could very well find themselves at a serious disadvantage in the modern world. On the same score however...there are many tactics that really aren't new persay...they have just had a modern twist put on them.

Because combat itself isn't new...only the tools by which we wage it are...and I intend to learn how to use them as effectively as I can.

[rob_s]

It's interesting to me how some simple words often mean such different things to different people.

To me, "training" is an all-inclusive term that refers to everything you do achieve your goal. A boxer doing roadwork or hitting a heavy bag isn't in a class with supervision, but he sure as hell is "training" in the truest sense of the word.

I prefer to use the word "instruction" for what happens in the classes we all apparently do. It's less ambiguous and in my mind, more accurate.

"Training" then includes instruction, practice, competition (testing), and other elements like physical conditioning, visualization, etc. Anything you do to meet your goals is "training."

I agree. I think it was in this thread where in one of my posts I tried to draw a distinction between what I called "supervised instruction" and "individual/group practice", both of which I think fall under the heading of "training.

[Submariner]

Which could be a whole separate thread. There is *training*, and then there is *practice*.

It's interesting to me how some simple words often mean such different things to different people.

One can never go wrong here by agreeing with a moderator.

To me, "training" is an all-inclusive term that refers to everything you do achieve your goal. A boxer doing roadwork or hitting a heavy bag isn't in a class with supervision, but he sure as hell is "training" in the truest sense of the word.

Having boxed in my wayward youth, this is a persuasive analogy.

Lost in the semantics discussion of "training" vs. "practice," though, is the comment on training over time with one school/doctrine. Would those here fault a forum member who decided to only take "supervised instruction" from Larry Vickers, year after year, based on the content of all the AAR's here and, then, diligently practiced between classes the skill sets he learned?

Just how many tools in the tool box do the “99% of us” for whom “carbine is a waste of time” truly need? Sight alignment/sight picture? Trigger control? Shooting on the move? Manipulation? This approach would certainly meet the aspirational goal of taking good initial training and good sustainment training ("training" defined in the context of this post as "supervised instruction" and such definition is in no way binding on anyone's conscience.)

What do you want to accomplish and how much time and money can you afford to spend to accomplish it?

Happy Secession Day to all!

[rob_s]

Something that's lost in all of this tactical-ness is the fun aspect. I am happy to confess that I attend training at least as much because it's fun as because I think I need it. While I think the fun:serious ratio for a handgun class is at least 50:50, in a carbine class it's easily 75:25 if not 90:10.

Yes, this means wasting instruction time and practice time on the carbine when it could be used for the more critical tool, but I prefer to see it as more like using up fun time for carbine stuff. If training with new instructors is part of that fun factor then it's in line with the stated goals and if I encounter something from that new instructor that makes more sense for my use than the dogma I've become immersed in from my primary instructor then that can only be a good thing.

Just because I may go take a class from TR doesn't mean I'm going to start standing downrange with a camera every range trip I take!

Ultimately there's two sides to the argument of remaining with a single instructor, school, or dogma. One is that you get consistency and you work on things on your own time that are inline with this consistency. Anyone that has trained with Randy Cain sees this across platforms and into hand-to-hand and CQB. Things you learn in his TH101 class are consistent with what you'll learn in his carbine, and his FOF classes and in fact set the groundwork for those other platforms as well. Things he teaches in his practical rifle also carry over and set the ground work for the way he teaches his semi-auto and even full-auto carbine courses. It's all a system, and it all works together, and Randy's background in martial arts training and LE work all come into play in that system.

But the other side of the coin is that you may never get exposed to a new way of doing things that might just work better, which is kind of the spirit of this thread. For example, and to go 'round to the beginning, Randy teaches a modified Weaver stance with the handgun. I am not jumping on the Iso bandwagon, but I AM seeking out training from an Iso-centric instructor so that I can compare the two for myself and see which works best for me. The great thing is that Randy is the kind of instructor that won't care if I come to class and shoot iso if that's what works for me and I get the hits. and his system isn't so rigid that it means that his other constants won't work when cross-training other platforms and classes.

I really like what Pat's been doing in terms of taking classes with other instructors, and I think more instructors need to do just that. I know in recent years he's trained with Gonzales and Vickers, and I know that he took things away from the Gonzales experience that made their way into his class, and I assume he'll do the same with Vickers. This is a good thing in that Pat's allowing folks to stick with an instructor they know and are familiar with but at the same time ensure that he's not stagnating.

[rhino]

One can never go wrong here by agreeing with a moderator.

Oh, man! I didn't realize I was doing that. Now I might lose my reputation as a contrarian. I suppose this is one of those cases where the blind squirrel finally finds the elusive acorn, eh?

Having boxed in my wayward youth, this is a persuasive analogy.

Lost in the semantics discussion of "training" vs. "practice," though, is the comment on training over time with one school/doctrine. Would those here fault a forum member who decided to only take "supervised instruction" from Larry Vickers, year after year, based on the content of all the AAR's here and, then, diligently practiced between classes the skill sets he learned?

Just how many tools in the tool box do the “99% of us” for whom “carbine is a waste of time” truly need? Sight alignment/sight picture? Trigger control? Shooting on the move? Manipulation? This approach would certainly meet the aspirational goal of taking good initial training and good sustainment training ("training" defined in the context of this post as "supervised instruction" and such definition is in no way binding on anyone's conscience.)

What do you want to accomplish and how much time and money can you afford to spend to accomplish it?

Happy Secession Day to all!

I suppose the biggest potential problem with patronizing only one instructor is that you may not know what you're missing. You (and this is the rhetorical "you," not you = Paul) may not have hitched your wagon to the best instructor for you, especially over time. Ultimately it's a personal choice and if you're getting what you want for your time and dollars, then the rest is probably nitpicking.

In my case, I've spent some time with a significant variety of instructors. I know who my favorite is and I think that overall, he's the best in the business. However, there are others that are good enough (for me and my needs) that I intend to continue to seek their instruction as often as possible. On the flip side, there are some that I won't ever again, nor will I ever recommend them to anyone else. I'm far from the most accomplished student or practitioner, but I'd like to think I'm a reasonably well educated consumer of these products.

The biggest difference in what I've seen is not so much in what they teach, but rather how they teach it. The presentation is at least as important as the content to me.

I'm not a big fan of the "tool in the toolbox" or "a way not the way" memes. I see them repeated frequently, and at some point they will lose much of their meaning the way words such as "tactical" have. I'm also not necessarily onboard with the concept of "tool in the toolbox," because I'm am not convinced that having lots of tools will necessarily assist someone in building the house. Instead, I think that in some cases is confuses the issue, especially when a given instructor can't effectively articulate why they feel a specific tool is important to have and perfect. In the ultimate application for these skills, being able to act quickly and decisively is probably going to be of critical importance, and being able to execute one's Tiger Kung Fu efficiently would be of more use than dithering while trying decide whether to apply the Tiger, Dragon, or Rolling Donut style in the heat of the moment. The problem with my idea here is, I don't yet know (and I may never know), what quantity and variety of tools is sufficient. Enough is necessary, and a slight excess might be better just in case, but too much may be ... too much.

Then with "a way not the way" thing, I think that sometimes what is a good philosophy is taken too far. At some point an instructor (as well as a student) needs to pick a team on some given issues in order to convey a proper level of confidence. If they don't believe the way they are teaching is the best, then why are they teaching it that way? I would much rather hear something such as "Here is the way I want you do to it. There are other ways, but I believe this is the best way. If it doesn't work for you after you try it, then we can adapt," than what is rapidly becoming a wishy-washy "this is just a way, not any better or worse than any others, and maybe it will be okay for you, but maybe not, but I really can't tell you why I think it's good."

And while I'm here, I'd also like to add that if I read or hear "fine motor skill" inappropriately used to criticize a specific motion too many more times, I may insert my head into a vise and start crankin'.

Re: carbine and wasting time ... I think I understand Rob_S's point, and it's valid in many cases. However (there's always a however, isn't there?), maybe not so much in others. For one thing, while shooting an AR is easy compared to shooting a pistol (overall), actually using one for defensive use is not something that most people have ever considered as a concept, much less explored. While I agree that most of the time most of us will use a handgun in the unlikely event we're in need of using deadly force, more people are choosing to rely on ARs and other rifles for their primary home defense weapon. In addition, more people are choosing to carry a carbine in their vehicle as well, some doing so with it ready for use (which as we know is entirely legal and perhaps good thinkin' here in Indiana). I don't think those people are wasting their time taking carbine classes. If the rifle remains locked in the safe except for range time, then I can come close to agreement. When the rifle is beside the bed, maybe not so much.


These are my opinions, and I'm welcome to them.

[ToddG]

Another tool in the toolbox: You can have too many tools. As rhino points out, under stress your brain really shouldn't have to cycle through fifty different techniques to find the one you need right then. On the flipside, if you've never learned to do a weak hand only double feed clearance in the dark, and some day you need to do a weak hand only double feed clearance in the dark, you're going to wish you had one more tool in that toolbox.

A way, not The way: Sometimes, this is a very legitimate thing. I know what works best for me and seems to work best for the majority of my students, but that doesn't mean other ways are Death on a Stick. Reloads come immediately to mind. I'm a very strong advocate of using the slide release lever. But if a student really wants to rack the slide instead, I'm not going to shoot him, kick him out of class, or make him wear a dunce cap.

These sayings normally come into play when you have a student who absolutely insists that what he learned in his last class from someone else is holy writ and any deviation is inviting Ragnarok. A good instructor should understand why he's teaching a particular technique a particular way ... but if the student doesn't want to listen or simply disagrees, I'd rather him practice something than just take his football and go home.

[ZDL]

***********

[Jay Cunningham]

Another tool in the toolbox:

A way, not The way:

These two make me crazy - they've become training clichés.

[Bad Karma 556]

Working a gun counter gave me plenty of opportunities to talk to vets just back from Iraq and Afghanistan.Talking with them allowed me to see how little I actually knew, and how much pure BS people are fed to boost magazine sales or somebodys ego.
I stopped thinking in terms of THE way; now I realize what works for me might not necessarily be the best option for someone else.
I realized that techniques can evolve and to never be so rigidly set in my ways that I won't be able to see the value in learning something new.
Ultimately I stopped thinking in terms of hardware and put more value in software; the latest and greatest gear can't save you from your own shortcomings.