View Full Version : Choosing a first carbine course
I am planning on taking a first carbine course this summer. I am currently on the fence between Jeff Gonzalez' Combative Carbine and Sig Sauer Academy's 2 day Defensive rifle course.
Two years ago I took half Combative pistol class with Jeff, and I didn't feel like I learned a lot, despite to firing nearly 900 rounds in a day. The CC is another high round class while the Sig Sauer ammo requirement is about half that of CC. Can anybody who has taken either of the classes comment? What do you think of high round count training classes?
Thanks.
John Frazer
05-25-09, 06:55
Perhaps a little more information would help people give you solid recommendations:
1. What's your mission? (Military, police, private citizen? See the "Thoughts on Training" thread.)
2. What's your past experience?
3. Where are you located?
Also, some clarification related to number 2 above: Do I understand correctly that you only took half of Jeff Gonzales's class? Why did you think you weren't learning much? I've been in one class where two students nearly left at lunchtime the first day for that reason, but stuck it out after talking to the instructor, and ultimately found the class very beneficial.
1. I am a private citizen and want to take a formal carbine class.
2. I have taken a number of pistol classes over the years, but no carbine classes. Most of my knowledge is from books, with little (beside range sessions) actual training on a rifle.
3. I am in the New England. Unfortunately, we don't get too many trainers here.
Yes I took half of the pistol class. This was a five months after I got my permit, and I was running Walther P99C. During some of the drills, especially from 25 yards I couldn't hit anything, and we ended up spending close to 11 hours on the range because of heavy downpours expected the next day. Granted, that was three years ago, and my outlooks has changed, however, the high round count that time, and the feeling - perhaps wrong? - that some drills were geared more toward mil/le - i.e. the 25 yard qual turned me off a little?
Having never taken a carbine class (Not counting Military class), but having taken numerous pistol classes, it could go either way...
You can absolutely do an effective low round count class, but either way you should focus on your weapons handling, skills, etc...
PROPER repetition is what will make you fluid, not tossing a billion rounds down range... for if you shoot without proper form or technique you are just having fun and not learning anything.
I'm looking forward to my 1st carbine class someday.
John Frazer
05-25-09, 07:33
Obviously I don't know you and wasn't in the class, but it sounds like that was a case of sheer frustration. You might also have been developing a flinch due to the high round count, especially if your pistol was the .40 caliber version.
Based on your comments, I'd suggest InSights Training Center's General Defensive Rifle class in Harrisburg, PA:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=31480
This class is oriented toward the private citizen or patrol officer and has a relatively low round count so you don't get beat up too badly. (They also have combatives classes where you can get beat up if you so desire.)
Before whatever class you choose, you might spend some time working on basic accuracy. Try the Wall Drill, 3x5 card drill, and Dot Torture drill at http://pistol-training.com/drills. (Dot Torture would be a challenge with the carbine due to the sight offset, though.) You'll learn more and get more out of the class if you're hitting the target when you get there!
I haven't taken either course but If it were me I'd probably lean toward the Sigarms Defensive Rifle class. If nothing else the lower round count will make it less expensive.
I took his CP1 last year; Jeff has a unique teaching style and it may not be geared toward average citizens.
Ironically, this time, I would prefer a higher round class, since I have two new uppers that I want to "burn in".
If you want a high round count course to "burn in" your uppers then the Trident Course will provide a great opportunity to do that.
Let us know how the course goes.
John Frazer
05-25-09, 10:28
Ironically, this time, I would prefer a higher round class, since I have two new uppers that I want to "burn in".
My recommendation is to take a course that will teach you what you need to learn. "Burn in" knowledge and skills, and the gun will follow.
You don't need to go to class to shoot hundreds of rounds in a day, and you've already learned that a high round count class may not be the optimum learning environment for you.
Pat Rogers mentioned a study that found most shooters can only really handle 300 rounds or so a day for productive training. (He admitted he goes beyond that, but still we only shot about 1200 in three days.)
The most I've shot was InSights' Intensive Handgun Skills, about 1800 rounds of 9mm in three days. The instructor emphasized that every shot should serve a purpose, but I do feel that was about my limit. My hands and forearms were actually sore for 2-3 days from gripping the gun, squeezing the DA/SA trigger, decocking, and loading mags.
I found that one of the classes where I learned a lot was taught by Louis Awerbuck - we used only 500 rounds over three days.
Don't get wrapped up in round count. It's a meaningless measure of a class.
300 rounds per day of bullseye shooting can make your eyes bleed, while 300 rounds per day of multiple shot, multiple target drills could be over in an hour or two.
A class that covers things like awareness & avoidance, color codes, OODA, tactics, maintenance, legal implications of use of force, etc. will have -- all else being equal -- a lower round count than one which spends pretty much 24x7 on the range working on shooting skills.
Find a class that is going to work on what you need as a new carbine student.
John_Wayne777
05-25-09, 14:36
What do you think of high round count training classes?
Thanks.
Round counts in a training class are generally not a good way of measuring a class or its value. You can learn more with 300 rounds of disciplined high-accountability shooting than you can from somebody who has you blaze through 2,000 rounds in a day. The key to measuring a training course's potential value is to understand the instructor, the instructor's background, and to learn what some experienced students think about the classes.
Blackwater/US Training Center has a 5 day carbine program that is, in my opinion, excellent, especially for those new to the platform. When I last took it, it was a "high" round count course, requiring 3,000 rounds....but stretched over 5 days that meant some light round count days where you did classroom work or medium shoots, and high round count days which involved a number of dynamic drills and low light training. That ~ 40 hours of training would leave the student with a very solid grasp of how to successfully run the carbine.
There are some two or three day programs that do a good job as well. Pat Rogers' carbine courses are highly regarded. Larry Vickers puts on an awesome carbine class, and I think everyone would do themselves a huge favor by spending time training under him. Magpul Dynamics puts out excellent carbine training as well. After spending some time with (and getting beaten on the range by) Chris I have absolutely no hesitation to recommend them to the seeker of knowledge. Ken Hackathorn is great to train with if you can get an opportunity to do so. They don't call him the Tactical Dali Lama for nothing. Paul Howe reportedly puts on a mean carbine course, although I have no personal experience with him.
...and there are others.
If you research these training options you'll find that the round count listed by all those trainers varies. It varies according to the philosophies and teaching style. It is the philosophy and teaching style of the instructor that makes their class valuable. Look at the writeups of previous students, paying particular attention to those who have trained with other people or who make their living on the pointy end of the spear. That will give you some idea of what sort of value you get from the course.
I'll use Larry Vickers as an example:
LAV is an accomplished competition shooter, a design consultant to the firearms industry, and spent much of his military career in an elite SOF unit with a hard earned reputation as some of the best CQB specialists in the world. In his training he emphasizes accuracy and mindset, specifically gearing all of his instruction to prepare people for the realities of a gunfight. His courses would offer immense value to anyone who was looking to better themselves with a carbine/handgun/SMG/whatever and who wanted to learn more about the fight. If someone new to the carbine saw that a Vicker's Tactical course would work out for them logistically, they would be doing themselves a favor by signing up.
His courses are fairly low round count, because he believes in accountability for every shot fired and is a stickler for accuracy. (To put it mildly)
Now if you peruse through the various AAR's listed here for VT courses, you'll see those exact same observations from student after student after student. That would be a good indication of exactly what one of his carbine courses would offer you.
The same is true for a number of other training outfits. It's a bit more complicated for a big outfit like USTC/BW. A big outfit like USTC/BW has a standard curriculum that a number of different instructors on staff teach. The curriculum is established by people who know what they are doing and is guaranteed to be free of goofy shit no matter what individual instructor you get. That being said, the instructor you get can make a big difference in the value of the class. According to the course catalog, I've taken the same courses at USTC/BW several times...but I never had the same course twice. I ended up with different instructors and classmates which changed the value of the class from being good to outstanding.
With a Vickers Tactical class you're going to be getting LAV himself, so it's a little easier to know exactly what you're in for ahead of time.
If you've trained with an instructor previously and you don't feel like you learned what you were after, that's God's little way of telling you that you might want to try training with somebody else. I spent 3 days in a Vickers Tactical advanced carbine course and I damn near wrote a book in the AAR's mainly as a permanent reference for myself. Same thing with the Vickers/Hackathorn low light courses. I wrote all that down because we covered so much that I had to write all that stuff just to organize the sheer volume of information in my head to have any chance of remembering it. I still occasionally read those AAR threads and I notice something I hadn't thought about in a while.
That being said, from the sound of things the issue with your previous training may have been....you. It's not uncommon to see people get frustrated and shut down when they hit the limits of their skills and abilities. I've watched it happen in training, and I've even done that myself. The attitude you take into class often dictates what you get out of the class far more than instructor x vs. instructor y. This is why many instructors now have "good attidude" as a course prerequisite. Training is about learning...learning is not always a comfortable process. In fact, it's usually pretty damned frustrating, especially when you aren't performing up to what you know your potential is.
For the relatively new shooter selecting quality training is difficult. It's tough to be able to recognize really good training from really bad training without exposure to both. The best you can do is read the AAR's from other students (with a strong preference for those who have training from more than just one outfit or individual...this helps differentiate the fanboys from the seekers of knowledge.) and then take it from there.
My personal advice:
If you can logistically make a course with USTC/BW, Larry Vickers, Magpul Dynamics, Ken Hackathorn, Pat Rogers, Paul Howe etc. happen, do it. M4C is an embarassment of riches when it comes to training opportunities and honest evaluations of training.
John Frazer
05-25-09, 14:57
I've taken Pat Rogers' 3-day Carbine Operators' course. It was a good course, and Pat himself is a cultural experience worth the price of admission, but for a person relatively new to the platform I'd recommend his two-day Basic Carbine course (http://eagtactical.com/coursedetails.asp?ListID=10). Unfortunately, he doesn't offer it as many times a year (although there are a couple coming up, including next weekend in NC and late June in Virginia, if you can travel on short notice.
Pat's 3-day course assumes a fair amount of basic knowledge. Essentially after a short review of safety and equipment, we checked zero, practiced a few positions, and were running drills at speed by afternoon of day 1. I've had training before, but felt rusty and behind the curve until at least halfway through the class. Some students with less training shone, but others struggled.
JF -- Thanks for the info about the EAG Basic class. A buddy of mine was asking for just such a thing last week.
JW777 -- does the BW (err, USTC) class cover things like maintenance, disassembly, etc.? A complete 5-day program might be a better choice as long as it can take someone from "I know how to point it" level and make him both proficient and prepared to own as well as shoot the AR.
John Frazer
05-25-09, 16:36
JF -- Thanks for the info about the EAG Basic class. A buddy of mine was asking for just such a thing last week.
I know Todd knows, but for the sake of others reading -- I haven't taken Pat's 2-day class, only the 3-day. But if you read the course descriptions, the difference is pretty clear.
I don't think we spent a second on maintenance in the 3-day beyond "keep it lubed." We did spend an hour or so on a gear discussion, passing around magazines, optics, etc., but I think that was partly because it was pouring rain at the beginning of day 1. And he did have us line up for a gear inspection to spot things that were obviously going to break/fall off/tangle up.
In the basic-level class, I wonder if Pat only uses basic-level expletives and basic-level ethnic jokes.
John_Wayne777
05-25-09, 16:57
JW777 -- does the BW (err, USTC) class cover things like maintenance, disassembly, etc.? A complete 5-day program might be a better choice as long as it can take someone from "I know how to point it" level and make him both proficient and prepared to own as well as shoot the AR.
Indeed it does. Disassembly, cleaning, maintenance...the whole 9 yards. The last time I took the class in 2006 BW even included a take-home manual with all the relevant information on maintenance and zeroing, and some pointers on use. The class is superb at taking someone who knows little to nothing about the carbine and providing them with enough information and practice to make them reasonably competent with the weapon by the end of the week. 5 day courses are expensive and a pain logistically, but personally I like the benefit of a full week of immersion, especially for folks who are new to the platform.
Another great feature of the 2006 class that GotM4 and I were in was Kyle making a point to bring in all the optics on the market at the time for folks to play with. We also spent an extended period of time on the KDR. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of ranges that allow firing at 300 meters and beyond. While it's not something most will ever have a need for, it's something folks should have a little bit of time on.
The medium shoot was another good feature of that course.
I've taken a few carbine classes, with Pat, LAV, Howe, Gonzales, Thunder Ranch, Jim Smith, and some agencies/org.
Jeff's classes are high round count and intensity, he may not be the best choice for a first class.
Pat, assumes you can already shoot, and focuses on manipulation skills,
LAV, Howe and Smith were all in the same unit, so there training philosophies are a lot alike. Their accuracy standards are very high, and they spend some time on helping you get there. To them, accuracy work is the back bone of gunfighting, thus, marksmanship is the priority, and is considered basic.
I believe it was LAV that said, something to the effect of...."if you can't hit the bulls eye on demand at any range, you have no business learning to shoot under a car".
I would recommend the Sig academy, just from what you said. You may want to work up to Jeff.
I would also recommend you check out the other instructors, and try and fit them into your travel plans, if you are serious. I traveled from ABQ, to Indy for my first PR class. Some of them even have gun rentals, so you can avoid that hassle.
I would also caution you, on practising on your own, with no basis, as you may just be re enforcing bad habits.
JW, good stuff, BTW Howe is great to train with.
Bob
John_Wayne777
05-25-09, 17:44
I believe it was LAV that said, something to the effect of...."if you can't hit the bulls eye on demand at any range, you have no business learning to shoot under a car".
Incidentally, this brings up a good point about training:
It's not *supposed* to be fun. Now I have more fun on the training range than just about anywhere else because of a number of factors, (not the least of which is wondering exactly what sort of colorful new ways Mr. Vickers will come up with to describe my lack of skill) but the training itself is demanding.
Some people in the "training" biz fill their courses with a bunch of neat-o whiz bang shit that involves a lot of moving and screaming and dumping a lot of rounds downrange with little emphasis on whether or not you actually hit anything. This accuracy emphasis demonstrates Mr. Vickers' real world grounding. In the real world you have to be greatly concerned with where those bullets end up, and you find out that misses don't stop threats.
The truth is that when you learn the fundamentals, they apply the same whether you are standing square to a target or are trying to return fire from behind the engine block of a Buick.
Remember: We pay teachers to make us better. We pay hookers to make us feel good. When somebody's primary focus is on making "students" feel like studs....well....you know who you are dealing with.
It's not *supposed* to be fun.
I'd have to disagree with that. Basic adult learning theory at its simplest: adults learn better when they're having fun. The OP is a great example of this, because he wasn't enjoying the previous class he took and didn't feel like he got much out of it. Those two things tend to go hand in hand.
"Fun" and "demanding" are not opposites. You said it yourself, you have a lot of fun at these classes. People who don't tend not to go back. The trick for an instructor is to provide a level of challenge that pushes students to improve without tearing them apart.
Anyone who knows a few buzz phrases like "front sight" and "trigger press" can work students to death and make things demanding. Getting real improvement by the end of a day's training takes a lot more than that.
John_Wayne777
05-25-09, 18:27
I'd have to disagree with that.
Probably not. It's probably my poor communications skills that you disagree with rather than the concept I have of "fun".
For instance: I was at a training course that was billed as an "advanced" training course. Some of the students were sort of complaining during one of the breaks that they thought we would be doing cooler stuff during this advanced class. Meanwhile the targets were telling me that the shooting under the car point posited by Mr. Vickers was appropriate.
Fun makes learning easier, that's true...but learning actually needs to take place. One can have fun learning advanced trigonometry if they have the right mindset and a good instructor...and possibly some sort of mental disorder. The same thing is true of firearms training.
EDIT -- well, minus the mental disorder thing anyway.
" I will give you what you need, not what you want."....LAV
I sure much has to do with what you are trying to learn and why.
Bob
For instance: I was at a training course that was billed as an "advanced" training course. Some of the students were sort of complaining during one of the breaks that they thought we would be doing cooler stuff during this advanced class.
Understood. The "cooler stuff" crowd usually fails to understand that most "cooler stuff" (like team tactics) has practically zero applicability to the average civilian gun owner but that "fundamentals" (like marksmanship and speed) apply to everything you do with a gun.
Keeping a group of individuals -- with their individual priorities and individuals wants & needs -- focused during a shooting class can be a tricky maze to navigate. Changing the tempo as the day wears on and giving people enough interesting exercises interspersed with the drudgery of improving fundamentals is definitely a challenge.
John_Wayne777
05-25-09, 22:18
Keeping a group of individuals -- with their individual priorities and individuals wants & needs -- focused during a shooting class can be a tricky maze to navigate. Changing the tempo as the day wears on and giving people enough interesting exercises interspersed with the drudgery of improving fundamentals is definitely a challenge.
Indeed...which is probably why the list of trainers in the firearms world who are truly exceptional isn't terribly long. :D
I'd have to disagree with that. Basic adult learning theory at its simplest: adults learn better when they're having fun.
Finally, something dead in the middle of my lane for once: Adult Instructional Technology.
For an adult to 'learn' properly, you need engagement, and it doesn't necessarily need to be fun to be engaging.
Csíkszentmihályi wrote in a rather seminal adult education paper called 'Between boredom and anxiety'
(I have it back at the office, but not here at Heathers), that touched on this theory.
Creating Course “Flow”: Finding the Balance Between Boredom and Anxiety
When we conceive of assignments and activities for courses, we often think in terms of what
students will produce — the essay, the lab report, the presentation, the finished problem set.
Research suggests, however, that giving some thought to students’ experiences while they work
through their assignments can increase student performance and enjoyment.\
Ideally, students find their assignments both challenging and engaging. Psychologist Mihaly
Csíkszentmihályi calls this optimal experience of positive engagement “flow.” A student
experiencing flow is intrinsically motivated, finding enjoyment and reward in the performance of
the task itself. Accordingly, people experiencing flow — whether artists, athletes, or students —
want to do what they’re doing when they’re doing it, which means they tend to sustain intense
concentration longer, reach higher levels of accomplishment, and perform better overall.
According to Csíkszentmihályi, flow results from a proper balance between a person’s skills and a
particular challenge.
Assigning tasks that challenge students beyond their current skill levels leads to anxiety;
providing challenges that require relatively low skills leads to boredom. Instructors —
and students themselves — should strive for the “flow channel” where skills properly meet challenges.
(copied from http://web.princeton.edu/sites/mcgraw/Scholar_as_Teacher_Creating_Course_Flow_33.html but the original paper is worth tracking down).
There is far more to teaching psychokinetic skills than being a good shot. At the minimum; being familiar with David Lazear's work on multiple intelligences is an excellent starting point for both students AND instructors. Not only to teach, but to understand how you learn as well.
As someone who just spent 3 days going back to the basics to work on my atrocious handgun skills, I would say that you should be very careful as to what first class you take. You need a class that works on and stresses the fundamentals. Taking a class with a lot of run and gun, team drills, etc. is not what you (or frankly most shooters regardless of skill level) really need. What you need is a class that stresses the fundamentals.
If you can't hit a single stationary target while standing still, then all the running and dynamic "fun stuff" in the world isn't going to help you. and a lot of what a class like that will stress is not much more than basic manipulations, which you could practice at home anyway.
I think you should try to find a class that stresses the basics before you get too far into "burning in" situations.
I agree that some of the "cool" stuff in classes has little to do with anything I would face. That's why I try to find courses that are geared more towards civilians than Mil/LEO who actually need to know material like team tactics, etc... cold. The chances of me ever having to do that are slim to none.
As someone who just spent 3 days going back to the basics to work on my atrocious handgun skills, I would say that you should be very careful as to what first class you take. You need a class that works on and stresses the fundamentals. Taking a class with a lot of run and gun, team drills, etc. is not what you (or frankly most shooters regardless of skill level) really need. What you need is a class that stresses the fundamentals.
If you can't hit a single stationary target while standing still, then all the running and dynamic "fun stuff" in the world isn't going to help you. and a lot of what a class like that will stress is not much more than basic manipulations, which you could practice at home anyway.
I think you should try to find a class that stresses the basics before you get too far into "burning in" situations.
I took Jeff Gonzales' Combative Carbine in late 2007. I loved it, but three days of Jeff's tender ministrations will wear you out, and if your body, weapon, and gear aren't already in shape, it will be a tough ride. While I was blessed with a Bushmaster that held up with no malfunctions over 2000 + rounds (apparently a rarity) my body and other gear were not so fortunate or well-prepared. Most of the students were Marines in between combat deployments, so it was understandably geared to them, right down to the PT punishments for missing during some of the exercises.
I don't know anything about the Sig Academy. I've taken a couple of classes with Louis Awerbuck. He's brilliant, sees everything, and is very low key.
30 cal slut
05-26-09, 16:25
OP -
I'm relatively new to the formal training scene.
Let me stick my neck out and make a recommendation.
If you feel you are a safe handler of firearms, and have some experience shooting the AR15 platform ...
Attend Larry Vickers' Carbine/Pistol I.
Chat with some folks who've trained with him beforehand on what to bring to class.
Oh, if only I'd trained with him earlier.
Good luck.
John_Wayne777
05-26-09, 19:21
As someone who just spent 3 days going back to the basics to work on my atrocious handgun skills, I would say that you should be very careful as to what first class you take. You need a class that works on and stresses the fundamentals. Taking a class with a lot of run and gun, team drills, etc. is not what you (or frankly most shooters regardless of skill level) really need. What you need is a class that stresses the fundamentals.
Bingo.
It's much easier to progress by learning it right from the getgo than to try and correct bad habits installed by sub-standard instruction later.
Submariner
05-30-09, 10:03
I've taken a couple of classes with Louis Awerbuck. He's brilliant, sees everything, and is very low key.
A great way to start if you cannot do a Pat Rogers two day class.
http://www.yfainc.com/schedule.html
Bingo.
It's much easier to progress by learning it right from the getgo than to try and correct bad habits installed by sub-standard instruction later.
Or in my case, effectively zero instruction at all! :eek:
RogerinTPA
05-30-09, 11:20
OP -
I'm relatively new to the formal training scene.
Let me stick my neck out and make a recommendation.
If you feel you are a safe handler of firearms, and have some experience shooting the AR15 platform ...
Attend Larry Vickers' Carbine/Pistol I.
Chat with some folks who've trained with him beforehand on what to bring to class.
Oh, if only I'd trained with him earlier.
Good luck.
Agreed. I took LAV's Basic Carbine/Pistol Course as a refresher. He is a stickler for accuracy and accountability for every round fired. If you do decide to take this course, bring extra pistol ammo. I ended up shooting around 300 rounds beyond the course description and less on the carbine. I was already a pretty good rifle shooter from my competition background and learned a lot on manipulations, malfunctions and shooting on the move. As for my pistol skills, I thought I was pretty good, but I walked away a much better pistol shooter due to his keen ability to diagnose a shooters issues and make them better. Check out some of LAV's AARs in the training forum to get a feel for what he has to offer.
SeriousStudent
05-30-09, 12:11
So much good advice here. Many thanks to all the contributors.
A question for the mods: Should this thread become a sticky? With many new addditions to this board, perhaps it could be a frequently-used resource.
John Frazer
05-30-09, 16:20
Failure2Stop,
Well said.
Personally I would be unlikely to take an upper-level course from a school without having taken their basic-level school. I enjoyed Pat Rogers' 3-day but wish I'd had his 2-day first.
I've retaken basic-level courses from InSights and learned something new every time--partly because there were a couple years between classes, partly because they update the material, and partly because I went into class every time with different issues to work on. I've done this with their General Defensive Handgun class (taken twice) and Unarmed Self-Defense (taken three times, though the third was mostly to bring my fiancee), and I'm getting ready to retake General Defensive Rifle.
I mention InSights because they're the only school I've retaken courses with, but I think the principle should apply to any serious student going to any competent school. I know Pat Rogers gets a lot of repeat customers in his 3-day classes; I think we had half a dozen in NC in April.
John
There are lots of places to learn trigger control.
There are lots of places to learn how to consistently hit a given target at a given distance.
There are lots of places to learn how to shoot from cover.
There are lots of places to learn how to deal with enclosures.
There are very few places that understand and properly train all of the concepts of fighting with a firearm. You may have to start small, but if your budget allows it will be better to find someone that can take you through all of the steps as your progress allows.
Interestingly, most people skip over the bits in red, thinking they are ready for the part in blue, when in fact the instructor that they think is giving them the part in blue really isn't.
If your skillset isn't up to the skills in red, there is no point in even trying to work on anything beyond that.
Also, just because there are "lots of places" that you can learn to do these things, doesn't make them all equal, nor does "lots of places to learn" necessarily equate to lots of places where you will learn.
I enjoyed Pat Rogers' 3-day but wish I'd had his 2-day first.
Pat's 3-day was my first carbine course. I learned a lot, and enjoyed the experience. But I took Randy Cain's 3-day carbine course a few months later and several times in the class, after what Randy was teaching me sunk in, I thought "oh, THAT'S the basis for the XYZ that Pat was teaching". My next time in Pat's class after Randy's was far and away better because Randy had really driven home the fundamentals that I could now apply to what Pat was teaching.
This goes back to what I've been stressing over and over here and elsewhere; learn the fundamentals first. and the quality of the instructor that teaches you these fundamentals is critical IMHO. Joebob NRA instructor down at the local indoor range may or may not (more likely not) be the guy you ant to learn the fundamentals from.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.