"I Ain't Need No Trainin', Boy!" or, The Face of Stupid [Archive]

QuietShootr

06-18-10, 07:42

I know we're not supposed to do this, but it is potentially so instructive I hope we can keep it on track.

There is currently a thread on TOS about why people don't train. THIS is one of the answers:

Posted: Today 12:04:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Today 12:05:32 AM EDT by A_Free_Man]
Originally Posted By Danj:
It always boggles my mind.

I have a very small "collection" of guns. I am more of a shooter than a collector. It never fails whenever I try to organize a training courses as the host the gun owners I know who have thousands upon thousands of dollars in firearms won't sign up for a simple two day class. On a couple of occasions when I couldn't make classes I already paid for I offered my spot free of charge to two shooters who had never received ANY formal firearms training. They won't take up my offer and this was around two hundred dollars of free training. Just recently I had a "disagreement" with a member of my gun club. He decided and told me that because he was older than me and in his words "has been shooting for longer than I had been alive" that he knew everything about firearms and surely more than me. I told him he should sign up for a class I was organizing cause he might learn something. He told me that he never took any formal training and didn't need any training.

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
Son, let me explain this to you. How old are you? Well, I've been around longer than you have. I've been shooting since about age 7. I was taught by all my relatives back when it was common to always carry a gun. My GRANDMOTHER carried a pistol in her dress pocket. My Dad rode a horse to school, and had a Winchester 1873 in the saddle scabbard. The teacher didn't have a fit over it... it was his aunt.

It was common, especially during hunting season, to see men carry guns openly in holsters, even sitting in a cafe having a bite before heading out.

Growing up we had to clean the reloading equipment off the kitchen table to eat dinner. My parents were both shooters, and did quite well busting up cases and cases of clays out back, competing on the weekends.

I don't really think there's much I could learn in a class from anyone I've ever met.

Local LEO's call ME for advice on firearms.

No, I don't think I need a class.

THIS is the kind of mud-stupid you can't fix. And this is what I want to keep as far away from here as geographically possible.

ForTehNguyen

06-18-10, 07:56

Old people set in their ways

ralph

06-18-10, 08:22

Hersh

06-18-10, 08:23

Yeah I don't think that just because someone is raised aroung guns that they gain operational skill through osmosis. Most folks I know that say they've "been shooting for years" mean that they occasionally go out and shoot beer cans off a stump and have been doing so since they were kids. Imho, casual shooting doesn't necessarily mean you have the skills to "run the gun."

There are a couple of members at my gun club that have been to Pat Rogers and others classes over the years and I'm very fortunate that they're willing to host informal training days and pass on their knowledge.

Oh yeah, the excuse for not training that I hear the most:
"I don't want to burn up that much ammo." :rolleyes:

Nathan_Bell

06-18-10, 08:48

I have a few friends who feel that way. They are "good shots" and always fill their tag limits during deer season so why learn more?
Took one to a LAV class. He still cusses me, because it showed him all the things he didn't know that he didn't know. Bit of a world upsetter for a 50 YO guy. He has gotten it and he does as much as his budget and time allows to practice. A couple others still don't get it.

I think there are basically two types of these folks.
The group of folks like Willy, who didn't realize how much out there that he didn't know that he didn't know. The ignorant, not using in an insulting manner, in other words.
The other group has a clue that there is a lot out there that they do not know and they cannot stand the thought of being made to feel like a newbie again as they learn that shooting a groundhog at 300 yards with a 22.250 or shooting a gong at 50 yards with a 45lc has very little to do with gunfighting. They are afraid to learn that a lot of what the "know" to be right will get them and their loved ones dead should their ideas of how to behave in a gunfight are ever tested for real. So they simply bluster and bluff their way along convinced that they will "rise to the occasion" The willfully ignorant folks, yes this is an insult btw, in other words.

Gutshot John

06-18-10, 08:51

God help me if I ever decide I can't learn something new.

I hope he never has to find out the hard way how wrong he is.

That said it's not my problem what some dipshit fudd thinks.

Darwin works.

RogerinTPA

06-18-10, 09:04

I never will see why anyone would approach life without an open mind and willing to learn, especially where firearms are concerned. The fact remains, most firearms owners are gun collectors due to a variety of reasons: funds not available, arrogance, criticism from self proclaimed "experts", don't want to be showed up/look stupid in front of peers...whatever. Despite the older folks mentality towards firearms training, overall, for the most part, arfcom is a mall ninja breeding ground/home base/wannabe/poser central.

Moose-Knuckle

06-18-10, 09:08

The gentleman in question is a closed minded fool.

Byron Ferguson is the greatest archer alive today. He travels the world as an exibition shooter. He also instructs at a school he hosts twice a year. Mr. Ferguson is quoated on the History Channel's More Extreme Marksman as stating that he is open minded because learning never ends. No one knows everything not even the best in the world.

C4IGrant

06-18-10, 09:18

There is really nothing one can say...It's pretty clear this person has his mind made up...etched in stone would be a better term... I'm fortunate that I'm able to take the classes that Grant is teaching...I've already picked up quite a bit,and it has done nothing but help me improve.(Thanks Grant) My goal is to get proficient with my carbine and pistol, I've got a long way to go,(I'm 55) But I'm trying to learn, something that the person in question above, is clearly unwilling to do.. There is no sense wasting time with someone like that, anywhere you run into them, They've already made their mind up, They "don't need no trainin"..

Thanks Ralph.

In the local training we do (Pistol and Carbine), the club has about 900+ members. In most cases, we get about 20 shooters from the club and 4 that are none members.

The most "tactical"/proficient shooter in the club attends everyone of my classes (which are free by the way). So what are the other 880 members doing???? Do they know more than me and just don't need defensive training? Doubt it.

I do have a couple older gentlemen in the pistol classes (70's) that are eager to learn and talk with me. I respect that they have been shooting for longer than I have been alive and handle them differently than I do some of the others. They are set in their ways, but will try new things.

As I have posted several times on this forum, Men believe that from birth they can do three things well. They are:

1. Drive
2. Screw
3. Shoot

We all know that we don't do any of them well without lots of practice. ;)

C4

LOKNLOD

06-18-10, 09:20

Spiffums

06-18-10, 10:23

I got an old 3rd hand gunsite t shirt.......... why do I need training LOL.

QuietShootr

06-18-10, 10:43

Personally, I don't think it's worth being upset over, guys.

As limited as training availability can be sometimes, just be glad he's not filling a spot in classes, only to end up to arguing with the instructor and wasting training time.

Not upset, just pointing out a good illustration of the mentality of the average gun-forum window licker as a negative example.

Littlelebowski

06-18-10, 10:51

So many people think that owning and carrying a gun denotes skill.

CarlosDJackal

06-18-10, 11:50

IMHO, the day I stop learning is the day I die!!

MarshallDodge

06-18-10, 12:36

orionz06

06-18-10, 12:41

I wouldnt say that everyone here gets it. It took me a little bit to realize that I didnt get it, and then a little longer to realize how much was actually available (even for FREE). What I will say though is being open minded allowed me to end up getting set straight.

TOrrock

06-18-10, 12:50

Unfortunately, you run into this even in more "switched on" clubs. The club I belong to has a fairly active IDPA and 3 Gun culture, and have for years, but very, very few of those guys have ever attended a class.

I don't know if age has a lot to do with it, although it might.

My father is 69 years old and is a a recreational shooter. He's an Army non combat vet (1960-1963), but he's attended a Vickers Battle Rifle class and a Pennington Concealed Carry class, and took a huge amount of knowledge away from both.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Vickers%20Battle%20Rifle%20Class%209-01-07/Day%201/DSC00205-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/DP%20Concealed%20Class%2021-22%20Feb%2009/P1010697.jpg

Some people just know what they know and won't be swayed.

I'm as fiercely pro gun, pro personal freedom guy as you'll meet, but having worked in and out of the industry for the past 20 + years has led me to believe that the vast majority of "gun owners", shouldn't be.

Not until they get some decent training anyway.

Failure2Stop

06-18-10, 12:51

The military is no exception to this mentality.

ST911

06-18-10, 12:56

Learning never stops. It must never stop. We must not tolerate attitudes or advocacy to the contrary in others.

QuietShootr

06-18-10, 12:59

I posted on another forum a few months ago how I thought it was irresponsible to strap on a gun without any sort of training. The uproar was deafening.

It is more arrogance and pride than stupidity. Here on M4, where folks "get it", you get kudos for how much training and experience with a firearm that you have while on others you will get high praise for that beautiful picture of the firearm that you just purchased only to be become a safe queen. :rolleyes:

A few years ago I was out with my boys shooting when an old retired guy showed up and started shooting with us. He told us all kinds of good stories of his time with guns but I couldn't help noticing how poorly he handled himself with them. My boys actually commented on the way home how they felt that he was not following the safety rules that they had learned.

If I had a dollar for every time some old duffer muzzle swept me with a gun I'd be rich. I seriously considered hitting my FIL in the mouth over the weekend because he just can't ****ing remember not to point guns at me. He is always finger-****ing something and will wave it around with total disregard for his environment. I found myself looking down the muzzle of a loaded S&W 629 while he examined the side of the cylinder for who-the-****-knows-what, and I had finally had enough.

I finally told him when he thinks he can remember NOT to point guns at me, then my wife and I will be around him again, but if he can't, then he can go **** himself, and maybe we'll see him at his funeral. Maybe.

QuietShootr

06-18-10, 13:04

The military is no exception to this mentality.

That's the truth. "I shot espert in the marines, boy! You cain't teach me nuthin' bout shootin!"

Or the 2010 version of that: "I just got back from Iraq, mother****er, I KNOW how to shoot!"

My last 1SG was one of the ".45s will spin somebody around and knock 'em down if you hit 'em in the thumb! M-16 bullets spin around in flight and go in sideways! Shut up, Sergeant, I been in the Army since 'afore you were born!" type guys. :rolleyes:

KellyTTE

06-18-10, 14:32

As I have posted several times on this forum, Men believe that from birth they can do three things well. They are:

1. Drive
2. Screw
3. Shoot

4. BBQ or Grill :D :D :D

thopkins22

06-18-10, 14:43

"...You cain't teach me nuthin' bout shootin!"

While everyone has things they don't know...he was probably right. There is nothing anybody could teach him about shooting. You can't be taught unless you're willing to learn.;)

Honu

06-18-10, 14:59

these are the same idiots who cant drive but they been drivin since they were 7

sadly %95 or more of people are really really stupid in some way ?

SteyrAUG

06-18-10, 15:05

I actually understand what the guy was trying to say.

It is "possible" to learn by doing. Certainly nobody taught Cooper the modern method, he learned that his instruction wasn't useful for his needs and he figured it out.

That said, it is a hell of a lot easier to have somebody knowledgeable teach you than to try and figure it out all on your own.

There is also another factor, at a certain age, you really do get set in your ways. I have received training from the very early 80s. Not claiming I'm an expert anything, that is just how long the training has been there to establish conditioned responses and muscle memory.

I deal with guys who are instructors in the last 10 years and they try and get me to do everything differently. They believe their method is better because that is how they were taught. The methods I learned are sufficient for me to find the black, and if I trained more frequently I'd find a lot more Xs.

But for me to try and undo all and know and adopt their method would mean I'd spend the next 10 years trying to get to my current skill level using their particular technique. And none of them understand why I'm not willing to do that. Sure I don't have the newest and latest IPSC Kung Fu with the precise, clean movements where I draw and hold close to my chest, extend, fire and retract like The Terminator. But my sloppy draw and straight line to extend presentation works well for me.

And to the horror of everyone, I then drop my line so my weapon is low and ready pointed at the ground. Completely obsolete if you ask some. Ironically it was the height of combat efficiency back in the Ayoob days.

And even if I did learn all the new methods, which make my methods old and wrong, it won't matter. Because in 20 years the new method will be completely wrong. Maybe it will become like clothing fashions and old styles will come back. Maybe when I'm 80 Ayoob will be back in fashion and I will be a supreme, grandmaster super ninja of the technique.

:D

theblackknight

06-18-10, 18:09

Don Robison

06-18-10, 18:36

As I have posted several times on this forum, Men believe that from birth they can do three things well. They are:

1. Drive
2. Screw
3. Shoot

We all know that we don't do any of them well without lots of practice. ;)

C4

The wife has never said a word about me taking driving and shooting classes. I'm pretty sure she'll have something to say if I put a screwing class on the calender.:eek:

On the OP; some people just don't want to learn because they are damn near perfect.:rolleyes:

Dave_M

06-18-10, 18:42

That's the truth. "I shot espert in the marines, boy! You cain't teach me nuthin' bout shootin!"

Or the 2010 version of that: "I just got back from Iraq, mother****er, I KNOW how to shoot!"

I heard once, "I was in the infantry three years ago--what the hell could this, 'Lamb' guy teach me that I don't already know?!?"

My last 1SG was one of the ".45s will spin somebody around and knock 'em down if you hit 'em in the thumb! M-16 bullets spin around in flight and go in sideways! Shut up, Sergeant, I been in the Army since 'afore you were born!" type guys. :rolleyes:

This kind of institutional inertia is why I still hear from active guys sometimes, "lube just attracts sand and dust! Less lube in the desert!"

I die a little inside when I hear this stuff.

Dave_M

06-18-10, 18:55

And even if I did learn all the new methods, which make my methods old and wrong, it won't matter. Because in 20 years the new method will be completely wrong. Maybe it will become like clothing fashions and old styles will come back. Maybe when I'm 80 Ayoob will be back in fashion and I will be a supreme, grandmaster super ninja of the technique.

Steyr, more has changed in gunfighting in the passed six years than in the passed sixty. No lie. Likely a lot of the stuff you learned in the early 80's was based upon theory and not from large recent experience. Up until the two wars, we were taught a lot of bullshit that people over-thought and had never tested. This is why we use the things that work in real life and toss out the theory stuff. When I was an instructor in the USMC, we received every AAR from returning Marine Corps units and took out what worked and discarded what didn't. When something kept showing up over and over, it got officially written into the books. This is where theory and reality go on separate paths.

Sure, some of the theory stuff works but a lot of it got sent right to the trash. It would behoove of you to listen to the lessons of guys that have BTDT. I'm not saying take everything that is said as gospel but I suggest that you at least try new techniques, give them a good college try, and then decide to either discard it or adopt it.

I, for one, think that the statement, "Well, it works for me" is the motto of the lazy.

Col_Crocs

06-18-10, 19:49

I know we're not supposed to do this, but it is potentially so instructive I hope we can keep it on track.

There is currently a thread on TOS about why people don't train. THIS is one of the answers:

THIS is the kind of mud-stupid you can't fix. And this is what I want to keep as far away from here as geographically possible.

Heyyyyy! I didnt know my dad was member at TOS! Kidding. :D sounds a lot like him though...
It's stubbornness and resistance to evolve, IMHO. Dont get me wrong, I dont mean anything disrespectful by using the word evolve. It's just the natural order of things. Their extensive knowledge may have been more than enough in their day but naturally as time passes, all things, well, simply evolve. Whether it be technology, clothing, weapons, education etc...
Time simply allows us the opportunity to gain even more knowledge.

R Moran

06-18-10, 19:55

I, for one, think that the statement, "Well, it works for me" is the motto of the lazy.

F'in A right!!

That's fine, if you really know what works for you.

Or its used as an easy way to avoid an argument/discussion that may prove them wrong.

I've about given up on these types..

"I went to Gunsite, in 1985!"

" I qualify!"

"You spend your own money!"

Etc., it wouldn't be so bad, but then I might have to rely on these guys.

Steyr,
If you feel you know "what works for you", and that new techniques won't be of any value, why continue to take courses?

One thing that I think about varying techniques...

I believe there is the ultimate technique, the one that scientifically, physically, whatever is the best technique.

Unfortunately, there are alot of techniques that are very close, close enough it may not matter, if the individual does not have the training resources, or willingness to really get to the point where you can see/tell the difference. Or if standards are relatively low, etc etc.

So we end up with, "it works for me".

Kinda like, and don't laugh,... love. Yea, maybe there is one true "soul mate" for you, but there are plenty of close enough's.
And the guy, who claims he actually likes, what every other guy in the world see's as a flaw. " I like that my wife bitches at me all the time". Because its better to live in denial then start over again.

Bob

NCPatrolAR

06-18-10, 20:01

One thing people seem to forget is the fact that methods of fighting always progress and rarely regress. How many current boxers do you see returning to the old English style of boxing? Just like with my boxing example; shooting has advanced by leaps and bounds and while something a person learned in the 80's might work; it is likely a less efficient method in today's age.

R Moran

06-18-10, 20:25

Or, I coulda just said that.

Bob

CCK

06-18-10, 21:53

"I went to Gunsite, in 1985!"

Bob

Which is the same as saying "I went to Gunsite last year" because their curriculum hasn't changed in 25 years!

Stand and deliver with a weaver stance will get you killed.

But then what do I know my guru "is a convicted felon ex cop" Oh noes!!!

Chris

Renegade

06-18-10, 22:21

Attitude aside, I do not see a problem. He clearly stated he had been trained when he was young. As long as that training makes him a safe shooter, then so what? Not everybody needs to take X training classes a year for the rest of their life.

Dave_M

06-18-10, 22:24

Attitude aside, I do not see a problem. He clearly stated he had been trained when he was young. As long as that training makes him a safe shooter, then so what?

This forum is not about safe shooting. This forum is about good shooting, at least last time I checked.

If you want 100% safe shooting, go to the airsoft forums.

NCPatrolAR

06-18-10, 22:25

Renegade

06-18-10, 22:26

This forum is not about safe shooting. This forum is about good shooting, at least last time I checked.

If you want 100% safe shooting, go to the airsoft forums.

So who says he is not good?

Renegade

06-18-10, 22:29

The question would be "what was his training comprised of"?

Who cares? What is it of our business? He has a level of proficiency he is happy with. Good for him.

ST911

06-18-10, 22:31

Dave_M

06-18-10, 22:37

Looey

06-18-10, 23:18

I am all about seeking improvement in both my Manipulations, Marksmanship, and even Mindset to be as proficient as possible all the time.
I have learned from a lot of people and other fellow Instructors.
as a left handed shooter i was always taught to rack the slide to the rear during emergency reloads because it was the sure way to get the slide back, later down the road i came across another lefty instructor(Aron Roberts) that was using a different method that was a lot better than mine. well i asked him to show me the way he was doing it because it was a lot faster and efficient.
i spent the next three months practicing the technique dry firing, live firing until i could do it in my sleep and not messed it up.

I will never be stuck in my ways, I don't think I will stop learning, but you need to make sure you get proper training. they are a lot of instructors that don't have a clue, there is a lot of people that just cant evolve with the times because it would be two hard for them to practice some thing new or they are just plain lazy.

SteyrAUG

06-19-10, 00:02

Steyr, more has changed in gunfighting in the passed six years than in the passed sixty. No lie. Likely a lot of the stuff you learned in the early 80's was based upon theory and not from large recent experience. Up until the two wars, we were taught a lot of bullshit that people over-thought and had never tested. This is why we use the things that work in real life and toss out the theory stuff. When I was an instructor in the USMC, we received every AAR from returning Marine Corps units and took out what worked and discarded what didn't. When something kept showing up over and over, it got officially written into the books. This is where theory and reality go on separate paths.

Sure, some of the theory stuff works but a lot of it got sent right to the trash. It would behoove of you to listen to the lessons of guys that have BTDT. I'm not saying take everything that is said as gospel but I suggest that you at least try new techniques, give them a good college try, and then decide to either discard it or adopt it.

I, for one, think that the statement, "Well, it works for me" is the motto of the lazy.

I really do get that.

Especially regarding tactics and gear. What I'm saying is just because I draw and do a straight line from the top of my holster into Weaver, rather than that straight up move to the chest and present in a straight horizontal line to isosceles, well I don't think it is gonna make a huge difference except for tripling the size of my groups as I spend the next 12 months trying to make it natural.

I trust the BTDT experience of guys like Weaver, Cooper and Ayoob.

But I still pick up plenty of new stuff from the experiences of Kyle Lamb, Larry Vickers, etc.

Avenger29

06-19-10, 00:02

I'd be a dead and inexperienced pilot if I thought like "those" kind of folks. There is always lots to learn. Stuff that could save your life one day.

I've been shooting for much of my life. But I still ain't shit compared to more skilled/better shooters...there is always room for improvement and learning...I cannot fathom how anyone could think different.

SteyrAUG

06-19-10, 00:07

Steyr,
If you feel you know "what works for you", and that new techniques won't be of any value, why continue to take courses?

Tell ya what's funny.

In the last 10 years when I have managed to take training courses, I've never had my technique dismissed as ineffective. I simply learned, and did their various drills with the draw, presentation and shooting positions I learned so long ago.

It is always at shoots or at the range where some "expert" will tell me how I'm doing it all wrong. Seems after 35 years I still can't hold a gun.

:D

SteyrAUG

06-19-10, 00:09

Stand and deliver with a weaver stance will get you killed.

Chris

Do what?

Please explain how Weaver gets you killed.

:confused:

NCPatrolAR

06-19-10, 00:27

Who cares? What is it of our business? He has a level of proficiency he is happy with. Good for him.

I suggest dropping the apparent level of emotional attachment you have to some of the statements that have been said so far. The discussion has been going well, so try to prevent it from going downhill please. While we are using the poster from TOS as an example; the thread isnt about him.

I asked the question of what was his training comprised of as a clarifying question. Being "trained" can cover a huge spectrum and many people have differing opinions of what being "trained" means. To some; being trained means being able to simply pick up a gun, load it, shoot it, and set it back down without shooting yourself. To others, "trained" means you are capable of all "A" zone hits while shooting on the move starting at 35 meters with a transition to your secondary at some point during the movement.

NCPatrolAR

06-19-10, 00:30

I trust the BTDT experience of guys like Weaver, Cooper and Ayoob.

This falls in with my view that fighting skills are constantly evolving and what was tip of the spear in '85 could not even been on the shaft anymore. Sure those tactics can work; but are they the most efficient or better suited to what we deal with today as opposed to a decade or more ago?

BTW, since when has Mas been considered a BTDT type?

Do what?

Please explain how Weaver gets you killed.

:confused:

I dont believe he is talking as much about the stance; but is really focusing on the lack of movement seen displayed by the typical users/proponents of Weaver.

NCPatrolAR

06-19-10, 00:37

The snobbery between the camps formed around big names is befuddling.

Some of the "snobbery" should be viewed as a legitimate acknowledgement of there being good places to train and there being places that should be avoided like the plague.

With that being said; there is a lot of jock-riding out there; but it occurs in all types of martial venues.

chadbag

06-19-10, 00:54

I really do get that.

Especially regarding tactics and gear. What I'm saying is just because I draw and do a straight line from the top of my holster into Weaver, rather than that straight up move to the chest and present in a straight horizontal line to isosceles, well I don't think it is gonna make a huge difference except for tripling the size of my groups as I spend the next 12 months trying to make it natural.

Actually I bet it would not take long at all to adapt and be getting better groups. I was a weaver sort of guy until attending a MD class last year. After working on the modern isosceles stance and draw etc there a bit I found my shooting improved and I had better groups etc and I was faster...

SteyrAUG

06-19-10, 02:23

This falls in with my view that fighting skills are constantly evolving and what was tip of the spear in '85 could not even been on the shaft anymore. Sure those tactics can work; but are they the most efficient or better suited to what we deal with today as opposed to a decade or more ago?

BTW, since when has Mas been considered a BTDT type?

He isn't, but his access to after action accounts make him knowledgeable on the subject.

I dont believe he is talking as much about the stance; but is really focusing on the lack of movement seen displayed by the typical users/proponents of Weaver.

Really, compared to isosceles to be the mobile shooting stance of the two? Weaver is the only one I can move in.

SteyrAUG

06-19-10, 02:27

Actually I bet it would not take long at all to adapt and be getting better groups. I was a weaver sort of guy until attending a MD class last year. After working on the modern isosceles stance and draw etc there a bit I found my shooting improved and I had better groups etc and I was faster...

I've actually tried. I initially considered isosceles to be another tool in the chest. What I found after trying to incorporate it is that I can't do it.

I can't shoot for crap. I can't move. It is awkward and unnatural. I actually can shoot better using the old single arm offhand than I can in isosceles. It really is that bad for me.

I believe it is a result of 30+ years of martial arts where I am always one leg back from my opponent. Where this makes movement difficult for some, it is the easiest option for me.

This really is one of those times when to know yourself, is to have an advantage.

l8apex

06-19-10, 03:11

Old war dogs or sheepdogs do what they do, some will take to new information, others will ignore it. My take is let them be. Who am I say to say or decide what someone wants to learn. I personally know a few and they freely share their thoughts and shut down when someone else speaks of some item not congruent with their thinking.

You really can't force someone to learn. It has to be volunteered from the subject.

This month I will be attending a class that uses a system that I'm not a fan of. Granted I've never actually taken a proper class from this particular system, but I've trained with some individuals who are up to speed on the subject.

I'm hoping that I can take something away that is valuable, even if it is only learning new teaching techniques rather than the system itself. Why? Its almost a guarantee that I will not adopt this technique, but I will get the information needed to make a final decision - I've been wrong on more than one occasion.:cool:

nickdrak

06-19-10, 03:40

I've actually tried. I initially considered isosceles to be another tool in the chest. What I found after trying to incorporate it is that I can't do it.

I can't shoot for crap. I can't move. It is awkward and unnatural. I actually can shoot better using the old single arm offhand than I can in isosceles. It really is that bad for me.

I believe it is a result of 30+ years of martial arts where I am always one leg back from my opponent. Where this makes movement difficult for some, it is the easiest option for me.

This really is one of those times when to know yourself, is to have an advantage.

SteyrAUG,

It sounds like you are talking about the traditional "old-skool" Isosceles stance where you are completely squared up to the target/threat with your feet in-line/shoulder width apart?

The "Modern Isosceles" stance is basically a fighting or boxers stance with a gun. It's kind of a combo between the Weaver and the traditional Isosceles. Your upper body is squared to the threat, but your strong side foot is slightly back, slight bend in the knees, weight slightly forward.

The best demo of the "Modern Isosceles" I have seen was by Kyle Defoor on an episode of Tactical Arms last season that was actually re-runned last week, where him and Larry Vickers were doing handgun scenarios from a patrol car.

CCK

06-19-10, 06:36

Do what?

Please explain how Weaver gets you killed.

:confused:

I was actually talking more about the high noon, square to the target, you've insulted my honor, quickdraw, flipping the safety off of the highly tuned custom wood gripped 1911 made by an approved gunsmith and deliver 2 to the chest, 1 to the head, quick putting the safety back on because we wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, fast reholster, wait around for the cops to give your full and complete statement and trust your local prosecutor to do no wrong because you didn't use the most effective ammo because you were concerned about liability Bull Sh*t.

I can't shoot for crap. I can't move. It is awkward and unnatural. I actually can shoot better using the old single arm offhand than I can in isosceles. It really is that bad for me.

I don't give one lick about your stance or how many arms you use. Just get off the X and put rounds on target and don't count on a magic number of bullets to be effective. Shoot to end the threat.

Chris

ETA: I hope your philosophically Libertarian side can appreciate the last couple of sentences:

"The image of the typical gun instructor out there is of a clean shaven, apple pie eating, always law abiding, american hero type with a 1911 in pressed 5.11s with a secret gunsite tattoo on his arm and a custom M4 slung across his chest as he reads SWAT Magazine.
Our image is of an unshaven outlaw infidel in sweaty camos, with a Kalashnikov rifle on his shoulder and a Glock stuck in his pants, teaching civilians how to do nasty things without asking for fingerprints, who obeys man's law only out of convenience, prizes freedom over order, and swings kettlebells for relaxation."
Gabe Suarez

rob_s

06-19-10, 06:56

So we end up with, "it works for me".

In certain contexts, this actually is an acceptable response.

however...

What I have seen, over and over again, in 5 years of running a carbine match, is that the guy that tells me that he doesn't need to shoot my Qual, doesn't need to attend our drills nights, and doesn't need to seek out professional training, is typically a total disaster on the line, is rarely capable of placing well, and quite often literally has trouble hitting the targets.

QuietShootr

06-19-10, 07:00

Which is the same as saying "I went to Gunsite last year" because their curriculum hasn't changed in 25 years!

Stand and deliver with a weaver stance will get you killed.

But then what do I know my guru "is a convicted felon ex cop" Oh noes!!!

Chris

It took me a minute to figure out who you were talking about. I'm not going to derail my own thread, but your statement is bullshit.

QuietShootr

06-19-10, 07:04

Do what?

Please explain how Weaver gets you killed.

:confused:

Nevermind, I'm not going to take the bait and **** up my own thread.

CCK

06-19-10, 07:38

Nevermind, I'm not going to take the bait and **** up my own thread.

It wasn't bait.

Renegade

06-19-10, 07:44

I suggest dropping the apparent level of emotional attachment you have to some of the statements that have been said so far. The discussion has been going well, so try to prevent it from going downhill please. While we are using the poster from TOS as an example; the thread isnt about him.

The only emotional attachment I see is people caring what an anonymous poster on TOS says about his training level.

I am sure you can go to the EMT/Medical web sites and find similar views as to why folks do not get more CPR, first aid training,...

In any discipline, there are going to be some who take it more serious than others, and are better trained and skilled.

John_Wayne777

06-19-10, 08:28

Do what?

Please explain how Weaver gets you killed.

:confused:

It would be more accurate to say that Weaver never gets used. A large federal agency has accumulated thousands of hours of video tape of gunfights that have taken place on the side of the road or in stop 'n' robs, etc...and to the best of my knowledge they've never seen anyone using weaver in any of it.

There is a prevailing sentiment out there among some that the details of weapon manipulations are trivial in a "real fight". I would strongly urge everyone to re-read RetreatHell's thread and to consider the lessons it contains.

Yes, "good" can sometimes become the enemy of "good enough"...but absent a crystal ball nobody knows what "good enough" is going to be in an actual encounter. When presented with a better way of doing things I've had to change my mind and my standard practices multiple times over the years. I've never believed that my bag of tricks was "good enough"...as I know that in many encounters there's a thin line between "good enough" and lucky. When I was on the wrong end of a gun, I was lucky.

I'd much rather be good.

rdc0000

06-19-10, 09:33

Who cares? What is it of our business? He has a level of proficiency he is happy with. Good for him.

Agreed. Stow the Egos at the range and stow it here too. Teach me, but don't preach. Show me how it works better.

This will not go well. I see Weaver vs. Isocolees and Suarez vs. The world.

Test it to see if it works for you and adopt it if it does. I'm open for discussion but when you say Weaver never gets used or works, I'm a little skeptical..

And if your doing prone like the Magpul DVDs then I know you've never shot LR.:D (yes this is a test)

rdc0000

06-19-10, 09:48

I've actually tried. I initially considered isosceles to be another tool in the chest. What I found after trying to incorporate it is that I can't do it.

I can't shoot for crap. I can't move. It is awkward and unnatural. I actually can shoot better using the old single arm offhand than I can in isosceles. It really is that bad for me.

My problem exactly. I shoot with left foot forward. This is from years of competition and square range practice. I still believe that isosceles is the answer to the problem that NTCH cures on ARs or spot welds cure on rifles. I believe people are right when they say that in a short range gun fight it will be "what sights"!! Since I have never been in one, I have no clue. Now I hear it is non dominate arm locked hard and shooter arm loose. ? I'm open to change and want to, it just ain't working on target..maybe that is the problem my (our) obsession with precision. Why else do I have this TSW stamped on the side of this obsolete handgun? :D

rob_s

06-19-10, 10:06

Agreed. Stow the Egos at the range and stow it here too. Teach me, but don't preach. Show me how it works better.

My first inclination was to agree with you, and renegade, however in this case the poster that is being discussed, or was, tossed his opinion out there. Granted, on another site and not here, but he made his opinion public, and some here have followed suit. At that point IMHO all bets are off.

There is a difference between me walking up to you at the range and saying "you're doing that wrong, you should take a class", and someone publicly posting their opinion that they don't think they need any training and folks responding to it.

there is a difference between this thread and the one where everyone is making fun of the two jerkies in the pictures. A small difference, but one that matters IMHO.

John_Wayne777

06-19-10, 10:20

Test it to see if it works for you and adopt it if it does. I'm open for discussion but when you say Weaver never gets used or works, I'm a little skeptical..

There is a difference between healthy skepticism and being obstinate. There really is a large federal agency that really did study gunfight video and really did note that even a hardcore weaver instructor presented the gun out with both arms level with his hips pointed in the direction of the target when he was in an on-duty shooting. He had learned and taught and used weaver for a couple of decades...and yet when it went real on him all of that went out the window.

It's also objective fact that no top competitive shooter uses Weaver. No elite group of military or law enforcement shooters uses Weaver. The Weaver stance itself was the product of an individual with a shoulder injury, an adaptation to a physical challenge that most of us do not share. Weaver is markedly inferior when it comes to controlling recoil and shooting on the move. That's not merely someone's opinion...that's objective fact. That is why the aforementioned shooters do not use the Weaver stance.

Once upon a time lasers were goofy doo-dads, red dot optics were unreliable and unnecessary trinkets that didn't belong on a "fighting" rifle, lights were completely unnecessary and green tip AP ammo was the bestest stuff EVER for any situation. The earth was also flat, the best way to treat someone with a fever was to bleed them half to death, and powder blue polyester tuxedoes with frilly shirts were stylish.

We've learned a thing or two since Jeff Cooper, folks. He had some good ideas, but he didn't have all the good ideas.

Renegade

06-19-10, 10:20

...and someone publicly posting their opinion that they don't think they need any training...

Rob he clearly stated he had received training - "I was taught by all my relatives".

Thus the underlying issue is how much training, and how much practice, should a given person undergo given their own life goals?

rob_s

06-19-10, 10:24

Rob he clearly stated he had received training - "I was taught by all my relatives".

Thus the underlying issue is how much training, and how much practice, should a given person undergo given their own life goals?

which doesn't change the fact that he opened the subject of his training, quality of same, or lack thereof, to discussion by posting it publicly.

John_Wayne777

06-19-10, 10:28

He could have simply said: "I don't kill people for a living, therefore I don't really think I need to be on the cutting edge of the current training doctrines to avoid death at the hands of some miscreant."

Instead, he stated that he doubted anybody could teach him anything.

That's a big difference.

Renegade

06-19-10, 10:31

which doesn't change the fact that he opened the subject of his training, quality of same, or lack thereof, to discussion by posting it publicly.

None of which we know, so it is hard to critique it, not that it is any of our business anyway.

Renegade

06-19-10, 10:35

Instead, he stated that he doubted anybody could teach him anything.

Actually he wrote:

I don't really think there's much I could learn in a class from anyone I've ever met.

Local LEO's call ME for advice on firearms.

Maybe we should be taking classes from him.:D

rob_s

06-19-10, 10:39

None of which we know, so it is hard to critique it, not that it is any of our business anyway.

That's the crux of the point, he posted, making it everyone's business, whether he likes that result or not.

Renegade

06-19-10, 10:43

That's the crux of the point, he posted, making it everyone's business, whether he likes that result or not.

Well he is obviously is not going to post his credentials or if self-taught by family or self, demonstrate his techniques, so it becomes a silly internet argument at that point, and hence why I fail to see why anyone cares...

NCPatrolAR

06-19-10, 11:21

Well he is obviously is not going to post his credentials or if self-taught by family or self, demonstrate his techniques, so it becomes a silly internet argument at that point, and hence why I fail to see why anyone cares...

You are letting a specific example obstruct your view of the bigger picture. We look at specific examples and use them to recognize ways to combat the problem of people refusing to taking a class. More importantly than that; we look specific cases such as the TOS example and use them to make sure we don't become the same way.

CCK

06-19-10, 12:45

Agreed. Stow the Egos at the range and stow it here too. Teach me, but don't preach. Show me how it works better.

This will not go well. I see Weaver vs. Isocolees and Suarez vs. The world.

If you don't like Suarez that's fine. I think he brings valuable info to the table. Specifically the FoF with airsoft that he does and how that gets incorporated into the rest of the curriculum.

I don't think two steps to the right or left are enough. I think FoF has proven that.

I think Costa, Haley, LAV, and Green would agree.

I don't care how anyone gets there. I just hope the good guys (that's us, here, reading this now) if confronted by a bad guy succeed.

Chris

NCPatrolAR

06-19-10, 13:04

SteyrAUG

06-19-10, 13:40

SteyrAUG,

It sounds like you are talking about the traditional "old-skool" Isosceles stance where you are completely squared up to the target/threat with your feet in-line/shoulder width apart?

The "Modern Isosceles" stance is basically a fighting or boxers stance with a gun. It's kind of a combo between the Weaver and the traditional Isosceles. Your upper body is squared to the threat, but your strong side foot is slightly back, slight bend in the knees, weight slightly forward.

The best demo of the "Modern Isosceles" I have seen was by Kyle Defoor on an episode of Tactical Arms last season that was actually re-runned last week, where him and Larry Vickers were doing handgun scenarios from a patrol car.

I guess that shows how old I am.

:D

But I would still have the same problem. Decades of training to do otherwise, prevent me from squaring my upper body to the target. So it is Weaver for me.

SteyrAUG

06-19-10, 13:47

I was actually talking more about the high noon, square to the target, you've insulted my honor, quickdraw, flipping the safety off of the highly tuned custom wood gripped 1911 made by an approved gunsmith and deliver 2 to the chest, 1 to the head, quick putting the safety back on because we wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, fast reholster, wait around for the cops to give your full and complete statement and trust your local prosecutor to do no wrong because you didn't use the most effective ammo because you were concerned about liability Bull Sh*t.

Gotcha. Now I understand.

I don't give one lick about your stance or how many arms you use. Just get off the X and put rounds on target and don't count on a magic number of bullets to be effective. Shoot to end the threat.

Chris

On a good day I carry three spare mags for a total of 61 rounds. I don't carry all that to shoot three times.

:D

rdc0000

06-19-10, 13:59

If you don't like Suarez that's fine.

I think Costa, Haley, LAV, and Green would agree.

Chris

I was merely making an observation that the tread was turning into a this VS that.

What I'd like a trainer to do is watch me shoot a qualifier with handgun then rifle. Then after he sees what I can do he can then tell me what needs to change. I'm slow but I'm accurate.

I don't kill people for a living. My idea of CQB is to drop the building. I'm not part of a team. I do like to try new ideas and I fancy a go at 3-gun to see if my old ways can do it or learn from the young guys a new way.

I think most of this is generational. I could not even tell you what was used before the Modern method. So, most younger guys have been taught the time efficient speed shooting style. I have knowledge from a captain that I shoot better than his highly trained special state police group that gets yearly training with all the bells and whistles. I'm not bragging. It's fundamentals that I hope will save my ass. I personally cannot give up accuracy for more lead in the air. I'll give Iso a go and spend some time trying to get it right. My skill set will have to suffice until I can find a trainer that will objectively observe my results and convince me that what I am doing is going to get me killed.

SteyrAUG

06-19-10, 14:00

It would be more accurate to say that Weaver never gets used. A large federal agency has accumulated thousands of hours of video tape of gunfights that have taken place on the side of the road or in stop 'n' robs, etc...and to the best of my knowledge they've never seen anyone using weaver in any of it.

Well let me ask you this.

I'm a member of Robs carbine club (we use handguns too). I even manage to show up and do some shooting on occasion. And in the matches I've been in, using my "outdated and incorrect" technique I have managed to score higher than people using the correct and modern technique.

Now I don't win matches. I'm not saying I'm that good, but I have put up better scores a few times than some of the guys who have scored in the top 5 a time or two. In those instances they were not in the top 5 of course. My point is they are "top 5" shooters on a good night.

I have noticed that what makes or breaks a winner is usually penalty points for not doing the exercise as stated or being slow on a magazine change.The top 10 in terms of performance is usually determined by a second and half at best.

So if my accuracy and speed are well within the acceptable limits, why is my technique wrong?

What really makes Weaver work for me is it is the same position I use when firing a carbine. Just makes the most sense to me and allows for easier transitions from handgun to carbine.

NCPatrolAR

06-19-10, 14:00

If we are going talk about instructors, let's talk about the material they teach; not the social group they are in

BrianS

06-19-10, 17:50

as a left handed shooter i was always taught to rack the slide to the rear during emergency reloads because it was the sure way to get the slide back, later down the road i came across another lefty instructor(Aron Roberts) that was using a different method that was a lot better than mine. well i asked him to show me the way he was doing it because it was a lot faster and efficient.

Do tell. Please PM a description to me or start a thread regarding this technique and let me know where it is. I have been shown some techniques involving reaching under and hitting the slide release with my weak hand and others trying to snag the release with my trigger finger, but neither were very reliable for me.

I will try anything.

BrianS

06-19-10, 18:06

Guys

Let's not get hung up on weaver vs iso. There is a time and place for both. While I use modern Iso as much as possible; I find myself working in Weaver-ish positions from time to time. Most often this occurs for me when searching buildings and I'm having to clear extremely tight corners

Couple other times you might find yourself moving into a weaveresque shooting position for a time:

1. The combination of your and the target's movement move the target outside the range of motion of your upper body "turret" to your weak side and you have to start bending the elbow of one arm to keep on target.

2. Fighting from a grounded position (knocked down, wounded, whatever) firing at a target to your weak side.

rob_s

06-19-10, 18:13

Well he is obviously is not going to post his credentials or if self-taught by family or self, demonstrate his techniques, so it becomes a silly internet argument at that point, and hence why I fail to see why anyone cares...

It was used, in the context of this thread, as an example.

and while this guy could surely be the anomaly, anyone who has spent more than 20 minutes around large groups of shooters knows what "family taught" really means: might be able to shoot the wings off a muskrat at 200 yards with a .22 (at best), but can't shoot for shit beyond that.

If all he wants to do is collect muskrat wings then what he's been taught may work well for him, but saying it has any kind of application in defensive or competitive action shooting is nonsense. The impression I got from the post in question was that he was saying exactly that.

If YOU don't want to discuss this fallacy, or post in question, then I'm not sure why you keep posting in this thread.

BrianS

06-19-10, 18:20

Most of the people saying they don't need training are driven by ego/delusion/complacency.

They either don't want it shown they aren't as good as they pretend to be, don't know they aren't as good as they think they are, or don't want to put in the time or see the need to put in the time to get where they ought to be.

In any discipline, there are going to be some who take it more serious than others, and are better trained and skilled.

That assumes the person involved has the minimum requirements to accomplish their reason for being involved in the discipline in the first place, which is sadly not the case in many instances.

Heavy Metal

06-19-10, 18:23

Renegade

06-19-10, 18:35

If YOU don't want to discuss this fallacy, or post in question, then I'm not sure why you keep posting in this thread.

I jumped in the thread late, was still on page 1.

I also went to TOS and read the thread in question, it is quite entertaining to say the least.

Now to fast forward to page 5, one thing I have noticed is many folks who have training, do not get enough practice on what they learned. Most of the time it seems this is because they do not have a range that will allow them to practice those techniques.

R Moran

06-19-10, 20:37

Man, you go to work, and miss everything...a few thoughts,

- I see/saw the purpose of this thread, as to illustrate the kind of mindset, that as a general rule, is frowned upon, around here. Given, the obvious slant of this board.
Not necessarily "training", or unwillingness to learn or evolve, but just a general malaise, that most consider the wrong mindset, for serious users.
I care what they think, because:
If he's on my team he's backing me up
If hes on the range with me, he can be a danger
If he's posting 1/2 assed BS, we end up with TOS
If he's talking to the wrong people, we all look bad
He's an infection, that will spread thru the community, and soon, everybody will be a self taught expert, that can't shoot.

-I've been in classes where Pat Rogers was a student. If he can attend a class, at his age and stature in the shooting community, I'm sure the poster from the other thread can too.

- Most "I've been shooting for years" types, are clueless, and it shows, They perpetuate myths, have low standards, etc.

I had a friend back in Abq, who'd go shooting with me. He would always bring all of his guns, shoot a few mags thru each, and not accomplish much. One day, I told him, to only bring his G19 and ammo. And, I showed him some basic marksmanship type stuff. he commented that in all his years of "shooting", he had never been taught to shoot. Now he had, and was shooting better then he ever had, in one range session.

- Iso vs Weaver. I really don't see how your marksmanship can suffer by switching. I once new a guy, who used to build 1911's for some unit at Bragg;). He taught me to shoot a pistol, showed me the thumbs forward, strong Iso, long before you saw it in the magazines. he would hold a 1911 upside down, and manipulate the trigger with his pinky, and tear out the x ring at 15 or 20 yards, just to prove, stance had little to do with making hits.
Your speed, movement, transitions to different targets, etc may suffer, but I don't see how your marksmanship can.

- Standings in competition, have to be put in its perspective. Type 5, OK, out of how many, and who were the losers? What was their skill level? etc.
My bud used to say, that one individual can "beat" another individual, doesn't prove the technique is better, only that that individual is better.
as has been pointed out, looking across the spectrum of top shooters, from competition to special ops, what technique is used more? that's a clue.
Well with in what standard? Lets not get complacent.
Don't expect changes over night.

- I've never had an issue, switching stances from long gun to short gun, rifle to shot gun to subgun, etc. They are all different weapons and require different techniques to shoot well. I never bought that argument to much.

-Suarez, was shunned by the mainstream community, so now he plays the too cool for them, black sheep card. I've no use for anything he says.

Bob

SteyrAUG

06-19-10, 21:46

- Iso vs Weaver. I really don't see how your marksmanship can suffer by switching. I once new a guy, who used to build 1911's for some unit at Bragg;). He taught me to shoot a pistol, showed me the thumbs forward, strong Iso, long before you saw it in the magazines. he would hold a 1911 upside down, and manipulate the trigger with his pinky, and tear out the x ring at 15 or 20 yards, just to prove, stance had little to do with making hits.
Your speed, movement, transitions to different targets, etc may suffer, but I don't see how your marksmanship can.

Speaking only for myself. Using Iso, rather than Weaver, forces me to slightly modify my grip. Also with both arms locked I completely throw off my natural sight alignment. Some people can switch back and forth, I can't. Don't know why.

John_Wayne777

06-19-10, 21:58

Well let me ask you this.

I'm a member of Robs carbine club (we use handguns too). I even manage to show up and do some shooting on occasion. And in the matches I've been in, using my "outdated and incorrect" technique I have managed to score higher than people using the correct and modern technique.

Are you sure they are doing the modern techniques correctly? Lots of people do things that look right, but in reality it isn't. I know because I'm the poster child for that. You also have to figure in stress...under the relatively mild stress of an audience and a timer, people often suck out loud. Modern techniques can't overcome a guy who turns into a no-sight-using, trigger-snatching machine once the buzzer goes off.

There's also the question of efficiency...it's possible for people to do things the "wrong" way and get exceptionally efficient at it. (Again...been the poster boy for that too) So efficient that they can beat another guy who is using a superior technique/practice that he hasn't honed as well.

So if my accuracy and speed are well within the acceptable limits, why is my technique wrong?

...because when it's objectively measured in an apples-to-apples comparison it loses. Matches are rarely apples to apples. If you invested time in learning the superior techniques you would likely see a temporary dip in performance that would eventually give way to superior performance.

A lot of guys see the performance dip because they are doing something new and uncomfortable and throw it out.

misanthropist

06-19-10, 22:25

I can think of guys who do faster reloads than I do using a revolver...and I'm using an auto. Does that mean that revolvers reload faster than autos?

I saw a video where a professional race instructor on staff at Nuburgring did a 10 minute lap in a Dodge Sprinter delivery van. Are Sprinters faster than the average Porsche?

The question is not, "are you with technique X better than me with technique Y?"

The question is, "are you with technique X better than YOU with technique Y?"

CCK

06-20-10, 00:33

-Suarez, was shunned by the mainstream community, so now he plays the too cool for them, black sheep card. I've no use for anything he says.

Bob
I'm sorry you're so close minded. Being shunned by Gunsite and MT teachers seems to me to be a badge of honor.

Chris

SteyrAUG

06-20-10, 00:47

Are you sure they are doing the modern techniques correctly? Lots of people do things that look right, but in reality it isn't. I know because I'm the poster child for that. You also have to figure in stress...under the relatively mild stress of an audience and a timer, people often suck out loud. Modern techniques can't overcome a guy who turns into a no-sight-using, trigger-snatching machine once the buzzer goes off.

There's also the question of efficiency...it's possible for people to do things the "wrong" way and get exceptionally efficient at it. (Again...been the poster boy for that too) So efficient that they can beat another guy who is using a superior technique/practice that he hasn't honed as well.

Well there are lots of military and LE folks, and lots of guys who do lots and lots of firearm courses. So I can only assume they are doing things correctly.

As for good at "doing it wrong." If a guy who is using inferior technique, constantly comes out the winner (not saying that is me) then is his technique really wrong? Sounds a lot like the old "You attacked me wrong" black belt defense.

:p

...because when it's objectively measured in an apples-to-apples comparison it loses. Matches are rarely apples to apples. If you invested time in learning the superior techniques you would likely see a temporary dip in performance that would eventually give way to superior performance.

A lot of guys see the performance dip because they are doing something new and uncomfortable and throw it out.

This IS an apples to apples comparison. We are doing EXACTLY the same things, running a course for time and accuracy. I can't imagine a more apples to apples comparison.

Perhaps you need to accept that your uber method might not be one size fits all. People are different have different body dynamics. Anyone involved in martial arts knows that. For example a jump spinning back kick delivers a lot of power. But I don't think it is the most practical thing for a 350 lb guy to devote time to. By the same token, martial artists will have you believe that the current grappling/MMA styles are the new "modern technique" which makes everything else obsolete. But if you are 125 lbs. I don't think it is a good idea to go to ground with a guy weighing in at 200 lbs.

See what I'm getting at? Additionally, if I have a guy who has been boxing for 30 years, I'm not gonna spend time making sure his wheel kick is his most deadly weapon. It's not going to be what's best for him regardless of how well I may do it. Boxers win fights, doesn't mean kicking doesn't work. Black belts win fights, doesn't mean punching doesn't work.

From where I'm sitting, I have seen people do extremely well with Isosceles. I have seen people do extremely well with Weaver. And I have seen people do extremely well with modified variations of each. That tells me they all work. And if you can do all effectively, then you have a significant advantage. But if not, you adopt what works best for the individual.

And, at risk of not being modern/correct/proper, that is what I do. Probably means I will never win a Grand National anything. But probably means I shoot sufficiently to deal with anything I'm gonna have to realistically deal with. And I'm better served than trying to adopt an alternate method that simply doesn't work for me.

R Moran

06-20-10, 03:18

I'm sorry you're so close minded. Being shunned by Gunsite and MT teachers seems to me to be a badge of honor.
Chris

Exactly, I'm sorry you bought into his act.

And we should not allow this thread to drift off any more then that.

Bob

R Moran

06-20-10, 03:27

Steyr,
again, the point is not whether one individual is good enough at his technique to beat, others who perform poorly with a better technique.

Apples to apples, would be, to shooters of equal ability, and competency, in their chosen technique. Eliminating penalties for procedural's, etc.
If you went head to head, against a grandmaster, and lost, would you consider that a fair evaluation of your technique? Or would you insist, the other shooter, was just better at competing?

Again, the proof is in the numbers, of people who are using this technique at the highest levels.

It may be "good enough", but that's never been the slant of this board, or we would all endorse Bushmaster. Of course, it may not be.

Bob

rob_s

06-20-10, 07:58

Since the subject of our matches has come up...

Yes, we have a good cross-section of folks; fed, state, county and local LE, active and former military, master-class competition shooters, etc. We also have (and moreso than ever in the last year or two) a large quantity of old, fatbodies that shoot the two or three matches a year they attend and nothing else. While placing well at our matches is certainly an ego boost and something to strive for, it really means diddly squat as any kind of test or barometer as to whether or not one needs additional training. Given our group, I would argue that the only way you could remotely use performance at our events as any kind of indicator of overall skill would be if you consistently place in the top 3 or 4. The bottom 3/4 of the pack is a constantly and ever-shifting mish-mash of luck, accidental performance, and not much else. The top 3 or 4 spots are populated over and over again by the same 5 or so guys, and even then as soon as one gets too comfortable I'll design a whole match of stages that plays on his weaknesses. :p

Part of the reason I continue to seek out training, and varied training with multiple instructors, is to keep up to date with the latest techniques so that I DON'T stagnate in the old ways and get passed up by those who are willing to adapt and overcome. Making it about something as trivial as stance is missing the point entirely. There is so much more to it.

This thread reminds me of Failure2Stop's Times change, do you? (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=33406)

Ultimately I don't care if someone seeks out additional training or not. Steyr comes to our events from time to time, he doesn't sweep anyone, doesn't shoot anyone, and doesn't piss and moan, so he's welcome anytime regardless of whether his training is from yesterday or 20 years ago. How he performs otherwise is not of any interest to me until he reliably joins that top 25% of shooters that I'm interested in beating.

CCK

06-20-10, 08:35

Exactly, I'm sorry you bought into his act.

And we should not allow this thread to drift off any more then that.

Bob

This isn't off topic. It is the topic.

If MT teaches you stuff that is not realistic it needs to be left in the dust just like MT left one handed BS in the dust years ago.

If you think he acts. That's fine, I can't change that. That doesn't mean the FoF training is bad.

And you said you have no use for anything he says.

So you're no different that the guy in the original post who said "I don't really think there's much I could learn in a class from anyone I've ever met."

Chris

rob_s

06-20-10, 09:10

This isn't off topic. It is the topic.

If MT teaches you stuff that is not realistic it needs to be left in the dust just like MT left one handed BS in the dust years ago.

If you think he acts. That's fine, I can't change that. That doesn't mean the FoF training is bad.

And you said you have no use for anything he says.

So you're no different that the guy in the original post who said "I don't really think there's much I could learn in a class from anyone I've ever met."

Chris

If you can't see the difference between a Fudd thinking his family training is "just as good" and someone else choosing not to attend training from someone with a questionable past...

I have no dog in this fight, but that's just silly.

NCPatrolAR

06-20-10, 10:24

That doesn't mean the FoF training is bad.

Last time I checked; no one has a corner on the force on force market. So if someone doesn't care for Suarez, it doesn't mean they think FoF is useless.

SteyrAUG

06-20-10, 12:19

SteyrAUG

06-20-10, 12:23

If you went head to head, against a grandmaster, and lost, would you consider that a fair evaluation of your technique? Or would you insist, the other shooter, was just better at competing?

Bob

I would expect a grandmaster to beat me regardless of any method I might employ. I suspect I would lose to such a shooter if he was using my method and I his.

CCK

06-20-10, 12:24

If you can't see the difference between a Fudd thinking his family training is "just as good" and someone else choosing not to attend training from someone with a questionable past...

I have no dog in this fight, but that's just silly.

Writing anyone off because of perception and lack of facts is sub optimal

Chris

joker581

06-20-10, 14:38

Writing anyone off because of perception and lack of facts is sub optimal

Chris

FOF is great and all but Gabe Suarez didn't create it. He isn't even a pioneer in it.

trappernana

06-20-10, 14:48

Training is a way of life. It's silly to force what is common sense to some of us on others,even if it seems absurd. At the same time I would never intentially be rude to an elder, who has seen and done alot more than myself. GB

Belmont31R

06-20-10, 14:59

At the same time I firmly believe quality training is invaluable I can't stand the "class snobs" who act like because they took a couple classes they are suddenly weapons masters, and have the attitude they are better than everyone else.

There is a lot more to using a gun than shooting paper targets...

I have no formal civilian training...not because I don't think I could learn from it but I just havent gotten off my duff to do it yet. Ive taken numerous MPRI CQB training sessions (my unit was stuck in Kuwait for 6 months, and us going to the MPRI guys was a weekly thing). Lots of top notch guys teaching us how to shoot...everything from 11B's with lots of experience up to the top specops guys from various branches.

I couldn't imagine thinking I could not learn something. My dad is now in his mid 60's, and just recently got into shooting with me. Ive been shooting since I was 12 years old. Just had a natural draw towards guns. My dad was always a spectator. Now its me, 26YO, teaching a older guy how to shoot. We went out last Fri, and my dad had a blast with his 22. Shot 500 rounds in 97 degree temps, and still had a smile on his face at the end. Now its "we gotta go to Cabelas to get more ammo!"

Palmguy

06-20-10, 16:14

I couldn't imagine thinking I could not learn something.

That's why the posts from the OP don't sit particularly well with me. More power to the guy being confident in his knowledge and skills I suppose, but there will never be a day in my life when I think I couldn't learn.

R Moran

06-20-10, 19:14

I would expect a grandmaster to beat me regardless of any method I might employ. I suspect I would lose to such a shooter if he was using my method and I his.

My point, exactly.
Steyr, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and perhaps I misunderstood your post. I simply asked, why would you go to a training class, if you did not want to try their "way"? Drills, I think there is a whole thread here on them, they can be searched anywhere.

CCK,
I've been lucky enough to train with some very switched on guys, one of the best & most active swat teams in the country, guys that don't get on forums, teach at name schools, or declare themselves "Supreme Allied Commander", and revel in their ostracization from the society he, apparently, once embraced.

It maybe perception, but, unfortunately, perception sometimes is reality. I've also seen him try and turn the tables, and make accusations against other instructors, class act. I've no desire to train with someone who presents himself in such a manner, especially, when there are so many other high quality, vetted, and respected instructors with whom I can spend my money.

donr,
Rob pointed out, how it went. Simple as that. FWIW, I've read Suarez book, years ago, I remember very little of it, other then a mustache. Fortunately, very soon after, I started to receive outstanding instruction, from the types of guys I mentioned.

As noted FoF is great, if conducted properly, w/o it turning into a game of paintball, "miles gear courage", and "who shot johnny".
It is not the end all be all, though, and no one element has a lock on it.

I've been doing this awhile now, with some good and poor training. I'll stop training, when I physically can't do it anymore.

The point of this thread, as I see it, is not whether or not, the poster from TOS has any bearing on us, or if it should bother or matter to us. It only serves as an example of the type of "attitude" that is generally discouraged at this site, and this site was developed specifically to avoid.

It may not matter if he chooses to train or not, if he confines his shooting to shooting cans on his back 40, but once he enters society, armed, it would be nice if he had some, wouldn't?

Bob

BTW, who's MT??

GermanSynergy

06-20-10, 19:34

So many people think that owning and carrying a gun denotes skill.

Yup- a very dangerous and shortsighted thing in most folks. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say something like:

"I wanna buy a gun- but no bullets, cause I am just gonna put it in my dresser drawer. If a bad guy comes I'll scare him off with it."

"I don't need no pistol training. I carried a 1911 in 1967, and shot expert with it."

No matter what your level of skill, taking a training class from a reputable instuctor should be an eye opener regarding one's individual strengths and weaknesses. No one knows everything, and everyone has areas that they can improve through training, practice and having an open mind.

Heavy Metal

06-20-10, 19:37

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/DP%20Concealed%20Class%2021-22%20Feb%2009/P1010697.jpg

Let me tell you something, the guy wearing the green Coat in the pic behind Templar's Dad is a first-class asshole.

SteyrAUG

06-20-10, 19:42

My point, exactly.
Steyr, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and perhaps I misunderstood your post. I simply asked, why would you go to a training class, if you did not want to try their "way"? Drills, I think there is a whole thread here on them, they can be searched anywhere.

Yep, something got lost somewhere.

I never stated (and it I did I never intended) that I was unwilling to try this or that. I'll pretty much try anything. I love guns, love shooting guns, love running around playing GI Joe doing gun drills.

What I said, was there are "some" methods, which simply don't work for me. And there are a few others, which I can do but the results are exactly the same so I haven't abandoned "method A" for "method B."

That is all I'm saying. And I think it is ridiculous to call an old method "wrong" when it works just as well as a new method. It is only "wrong" if it doesn't work for a particular individual.

Don Robison

06-20-10, 20:09

donr,
Rob pointed out, how it went. Simple as that. FWIW, I've read Suarez book, years ago, I remember very little of it, other then a mustache. Fortunately, very soon after, I started to receive outstanding instruction, from the types of guys I mentioned.

As noted FoF is great, if conducted properly, w/o it turning into a game of paintball, "miles gear courage", and "who shot johnny".
It is not the end all be all, though, and no one element has a lock on it.

I've been doing this awhile now, with some good and poor training. I'll stop training, when I physically can't do it anymore.

The point of this thread, as I see it, is not whether or not, the poster from TOS has any bearing on us, or if it should bother or matter to us. It only serves as an example of the type of "attitude" that is generally discouraged at this site, and this site was developed specifically to avoid.

It may not matter if he chooses to train or not, if he confines his shooting to shooting cans on his back 40, but once he enters society, armed, it would be nice if he had some, wouldn't?

Bob

BTW, who's MT??

Bob,
We're more in agreement than not with your comments on training content and reasons to train. I was simply trying to establish if the comments such as yours and others about SI training was based on first hand knowledge, internet folklore, or perception.
I've often recommended other training venues and other instructors that I can speak of from first hand experience e.g. Kyle Defoor. Gabe encourages his instructors to seek training from other companies. He knows and understands that things evolve and that if you only train from within it becomes incestuous. By the same token we've had instructors from other organizations in SI classes.
I'm with you on FoF with airsoft not being the end all be all, it has it's flaws and limitations, but it is a viable and cost effective alternative. It's also a bit more realistic than only shooting paper. If an instructor is simply turning it into a paint ball game he should reevaluate what he's doing.
Personally, I try not to decry an instructor from our organization or another even though I don't agree with everyone's take on things. It's a cut throat business and I'd like to hold myself to a higher standard by not making those disagreements personal. I'm also too old to take guru worship seriously.

Speaking of SI, is it true that there is a, 'Patrolling' class being taught in Colorado in September by someone who was never in the military or a so-called, 'High Risk Operator'?

...and people wonder...

I've never met Dan, but my understanding is that he was an 11B. You could email him and ask him.
info@sneakybags.com

My apologies if this was too much off track. I'll shut my trap now.

Almost forgot MT= modern technique.

drrufo

06-20-10, 21:58

I have been discussions with several training businesses in SoCal about the reasoning for them not offering special classes for FAT guys with Bad Knees.
One company trains at a range on Chino, the range has cement walks and level ground. I need a motorized scooter because of my knees and a developing hip issue, but I can stand and kneel( poorly) to do the training, just need the scooter to sit between rounds and during lectures.

They didn't think they could accommodate me because of the scooter. This is the same attitude I have received from other businesses.

All of you who run training classes are missing a segment of the shooting family, I want to be able to hit what I shoot at without worrying about missing, it is very easy to take the 'tude of " I can build the damn gun so I can shoot it good".

I shoot ok not world class nor do I want shoot that well. I just want to feel confident when I carry my Glock that I can hit any target within range if I need to shoot.

My son can shoot my pistols much better than I can, so I have some habits that need to be corrected.I gave him a 1911 copy that I built from the frame up and he shoots that very well.

So to end this little ramble, is there anyone out there that teaches in SoCal who would consider developing a class for all us FGWBK.

m1a_scoutguy

06-21-10, 01:15

Ya never stop learning as long as your taking breaths !!! I'm a 56 year old guy and have had guns as long as I can remember & my Brother and I would sneak my Dads guns 357 included out to the back yard and shoot them when we could get away with it,,:eek: I stated Hunting as soon as I could & started buying guns,,rifles & shotguns as soon as I had the $$$ & got my NY Pistol Permit when I turned 21,,(A loooooooong time ago,,LOL ) But with all that said,,I was the guy that took his rifle/shotgun out and sighted it in 2 days before the season and I was good to go !! It wasn't until about 3or 4 years ago that I really started going to Carbine shoots and taking this stuff serious & I had my first AR & M1a's about 7 or 8 years. I am lucky enough to have a buddy that has shot competition,IDPA & IPSIC for a long time and is VERY good at it & he invites me to his range alot and shows this Ole dog how its done !! I must say my Pistol shooting has improved alot,,reloads,,clearing rounds,,etc,,have seen big improvements !!! I also have been lucky enough to have met and shot with Chris Fry who runs MDTS out of the Utica NY area,,I have never taken a formal class ( I know,,my bad) but Chris has done some Fund raisers for our club (which he is a member) and brought his skill and expertise to us for a very reasonable fee !!! I have done 2 rifle shoots this year already a Big one the First weekend in May,,it is called "Square Deal Rifle Shoot" I believe,,it was BIG with 7 Stages,,,what a Awesome day. I also went to a local shoot last weekend @ Otisco R&G Club,it is small but run very good,,by the Staff there & there will be more to come !!
It all boils down to your never to old to learn,,keep that attitude and you will go a loooooooooong way it making yourself a better marksman in all types of shooting,,bullseye,,CQB,,,Service Rifle,,etc ! Bottom line when you go to the range shoot with a "Purpose" just don't sling lead down range !!!

l8apex

06-21-10, 01:23

So to end this little ramble, is there anyone out there that teaches in SoCal who would consider developing a class for all us FGWBK.

Not to detract from the OP, however sent you a pm.

rob_s

06-21-10, 03:24

Sounds like you are the guy to ask.

First let me preface by saying my attendance is based upon opportunity. Suffice to say it is difficult for me to head west in rush hour traffic and make it regularly. That and a few years ago I joined the Delray PBA club so I have a private club where I can practice at my leisure since I have a key.

In any case. I'm not resistant to training or learning. I pick up a ton of tricks and tips from your guys. I don't think I'm above them, I've adopted a few.

But for some reason I can't shoot Iso (which seems to be the new Jedi way). For whatever reason, it simply doesn't work "for me." Given this limitation, aren't I "adapting and overcoming" by using a method that does work for me?

I don't really want to make this about the stance issue, but speaking more broadly...

I am by no means a master of anything, but I have been running carbine drills for a little over two years and I have seen some interesting things that go along with "can't". As you might imagine we get a LOT of shooters that come out who have never left the bench. Many of them are great at shooting the bullseye out of the target with an erect, elbow out, almost marksmanship posture, odd methods of working the gun, etc. I generally offer suggestions to them here and there, but I also know that what I'm trying to get them to change will eventually sell itself. I often hear "I just can't", and many times "I've tried that before and it doesn't work for me". Having that instruction and opportunity to try what's being taught in a supervised environment are critical. Trying something on one's own, or with sub-optimal instruction, isn't really a good test IMHO. It's like comparing wanking to actual sex.

Which, ironically, is the point of this thread.

If you're really interested in updating your technique in an effort to improve your overall performance, you need to go train with someone that really understands and knows how to get the most performance out of shooters. Frank Garcia is about 2.5 hours from you, does one, two, and three-day classes, and (as he said during my class with him) "builds shooting machines". He's not going to get hung up on stance as a standalone. He's going to show you techniques to improve your overall performance that only work in modern iso. It's not that the stance alone is better, it's that you can't perform optimally without it.

Bottom line, you have to have instruction from a competent instructor that has proven they can utilize the techniques they are showing you either on the gaming field or the battlefield.

rob_s

06-21-10, 03:29

I would expect a grandmaster to beat me regardless of any method I might employ. I suspect I would lose to such a shooter if he was using my method and I his.

I think what you're missing is that it's current technique that has allowed him to get where he is. I submit that, while he might beat you using your technique, he would not place well.

It is not simply luck, group-think, or coincidence that all of the top level competitive shooters utilize pretty much the same technique.

Keydet08

06-21-10, 03:58

The military is no exception to this mentality.

aka the Marine Gunner

Dave_M

06-21-10, 12:11

I've never met Dan, but my understanding is that he was an 11B. You could email him and ask him.
info@sneakybags.com

If that's the case then I stand corrected. I won't do anything further to derail this thread.

Cincinnatus

06-21-10, 12:28

Cincinnatus

06-21-10, 12:43

The folks that believe that they have nothing to learn from training are indeed annoying. Equally annoying, and often moreso, are those that assert that because you are not attending certain training, or certain instructors, that you are somehow tactically, philosophically, or otherwise inferior.

Truly, those classes and instructors that are often named are worth attending and offer fantastic learning opportunities, but having brand X on your vitae instead of brand Y should not automatically read "deficiency."

The snobbery between the camps formed around big names is befuddling.
I am reminded by this whole discussion of the philosophy espoused in Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kune Do. The same type of bull-headed refusal to accept pragmatic and practical common sense in shooting by some like the OP posted about, plagued the world of martial arts at the time of Lee's writing.
In its essence, Lee's philosophy was: take what works, discard what doesn't; never stop learning and adapting and learn as much much as possible.

gringop

06-21-10, 13:57

I think there is a broad spectrum of shooters ranging from the close-minded guy in the OP to top competitive and tactical shooters. To me, it seems like it all comes down to levels of motivation.

The close-minded guy in the OP may be scared of hurting his ego, he's is demotivated to get any training at all.
A new CCW guy may want to get good enough to defend himself but doesn't have time or budget for a multi-day class so he finds a local 4 hour class.
A competition shooter may get motivated and want to move up to a higher classification. He will spend time and money on classes and frequent practice.
A high level SWAT cop or SF mil guy will be very motivated to maintain a high level of training both with weapons and hand to hand.

After reaching a certain level, highly motivated shooters will realize that sub-optimal techniques will not allow them to progress further. They change their techniques or stop progressing. That is their decision.

My brother tried for a year to shoot Iso and was very frustrated. He switched back to Weaver and immediately shot better. But I know that he will never shoot competition at a master level shooting Weaver. That is not his level of motivation.

I shot for 15 years without any kind of professional training and pretty much sucked. When I got tired of sucking as a shooter, I got motivated to spend money and get training. My motivation overcame my ego of being a born good shot. Now I'm a skilled competitor and part time trainer.

I guess the whole point of this sermon is that people will make the effort to get training only if they think it is worth the time, money and ego invested. We can't all be Kyle Lamb or Pat Rogers.

Gringop

SteyrAUG

06-22-10, 00:46

I don't really want to make this about the stance issue, but speaking more broadly...

I am by no means a master of anything, but I have been running carbine drills for a little over two years and I have seen some interesting things that go along with "can't". As you might imagine we get a LOT of shooters that come out who have never left the bench. Many of them are great at shooting the bullseye out of the target with an erect, elbow out, almost marksmanship posture, odd methods of working the gun, etc. I generally offer suggestions to them here and there, but I also know that what I'm trying to get them to change will eventually sell itself. I often hear "I just can't", and many times "I've tried that before and it doesn't work for me". Having that instruction and opportunity to try what's being taught in a supervised environment are critical. Trying something on one's own, or with sub-optimal instruction, isn't really a good test IMHO. It's like comparing wanking to actual sex.

Which, ironically, is the point of this thread.

If you're really interested in updating your technique in an effort to improve your overall performance, you need to go train with someone that really understands and knows how to get the most performance out of shooters. Frank Garcia is about 2.5 hours from you, does one, two, and three-day classes, and (as he said during my class with him) "builds shooting machines". He's not going to get hung up on stance as a standalone. He's going to show you techniques to improve your overall performance that only work in modern iso. It's not that the stance alone is better, it's that you can't perform optimally without it.

Bottom line, you have to have instruction from a competent instructor that has proven they can utilize the techniques they are showing you either on the gaming field or the battlefield.

Well from where I'm sitting, the stance is the only issue.

I'm not opposed to instruction, new methods or any kind of training. In fact, there seems to be quite the surplus of well qualified individuals lately. I've picked up some really good information as a result.

But about the only thing I haven't adopted is the isosceles stances for the reasons previously stated.

SteyrAUG

06-22-10, 00:56

I think what you're missing is that it's current technique that has allowed him to get where he is. I submit that, while he might beat you using your technique, he would not place well.

It is not simply luck, group-think, or coincidence that all of the top level competitive shooters utilize pretty much the same technique.

At risk of being wrong, I believe experience and rounds downrange have far more to do with it.

It's kinda like that 100 year old reclined, rest the rifle on your feet shooting position. People used to shoot and win the national match with that crazy position. Now if you and I tried it, we'd be lucky to hit the damn barn.

We were taught prone, we practice in prone and that is how we shoot. But if given the same 100 year old weapons, I'm not sure we'd completely school all those old timers using their crazy shooting position.

Probably the reason all the "experts" are winning with isosceles these days is simply because that is their preferred and practiced position, just as it was once weaver.

These are all just "methods" and each has their inherent advantages and disadvantages. And some are more suited to particular individuals than others. I have found one that seems to work best for me, after evaluating and practicing the ones I've learned.

My shooting ability will only improve with experience and rounds downrange. I don't think any new "method" will magically transform me Todd Jarrett.

SteyrAUG

06-22-10, 00:58

I am reminded by this whole discussion of the philosophy espoused in Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kune Do. The same type of bull-headed refusal to accept pragmatic and practical common sense in shooting by some like the OP posted about, plagued the world of martial arts at the time of Lee's writing.
In its essence, Lee's philosophy was: take what works, discard what doesn't; never stop learning and adapting and learn as much much as possible.

Interestingly enough, that is my philosophy.

Yet people continue to insist that I adopt methods that didn't work for me. Basically Iso "crams and distorts" this once fluid man.

:D

rob_s

06-22-10, 03:48

Probably the reason all the "experts" are winning with isosceles these days is simply because that is their preferred and practiced position, just as it was once weaver.

So then the only reason they're all using the same techniques is.... what again?

SteyrAUG

06-22-10, 13:23

So then the only reason they're all using the same techniques is.... what again?

I imagine it works best for them, and unlike a few of us, it doesn't inhibit them.

chadbag

06-22-10, 13:26

I imagine it works best for them, and unlike a few of us, it doesn't inhibit them.

I would bet that if you had proper instruction in modern isosceles, and then spent 6 months (supervised as needed) of practicing it, you would find that it does not inhibit you. Change sucks (don't we all know) and takes some time getting used to / proficient in. A weekend of trying it, especially unsupervised, will not tell you anything.

SteyrAUG

06-22-10, 13:34

I would bet that if you had proper instruction in modern isosceles, and then spent 6 months (supervised as needed) of practicing it, you would find that it does not inhibit you. Change sucks (don't we all know) and takes some time getting used to / proficient in. A weekend of trying it, especially unsupervised, will not tell you anything.

Why do you assume I am not qualified to make such a determination? My introduction to iso was hardly an unsupervised weekend. Suffice to say I practiced iso with the intention of adding the skill to my repertoire. I learned and practiced it with the same intentions and dedication that I learned weaver. But there comes a time, and I don't mean two days, when it becomes obvious that something simply isn't going to work for you.

I could probably spend 6 months of intensive training and get iso to the point where most of them (but not all of them) find their way to the black. I just don't understand the benefit of that. Again, I don't think I will ever shoot iso as well as I shoot weaver right now. And that time could be spent on what I do well currently, and improving.

chadbag

06-22-10, 14:05

Why do you assume I am not qualified to make such a determination? My introduction to iso was hardly an unsupervised weekend. Suffice to say I practiced iso with the intention of adding the skill to my repertoire. I learned and practiced it with the same intentions and dedication that I learned weaver. But there comes a time, and I don't mean two days, when it becomes obvious that something simply isn't going to work for you.

I could probably spend 6 months of intensive training and get iso to the point where most of them (but not all of them) find their way to the black. I just don't understand the benefit of that. Again, I don't think I will ever shoot iso as well as I shoot weaver right now. And that time could be spent on what I do well currently, and improving.

I did not make any assumptions about your qualifications. I have just seen enough people who think a technique does not work for them when the reality is they are either not doing it right, or do not practice it enough to "get it." This is not only with shooting. It applies to lots of fields.

Unless you have a physical deformity or ride around on an electric cart or weigh 450lbs, I am guessing that you could learn the modern iso techniques and become proficient in them and eventually end up better off. And also more prepared. It seems no one, even weaver experts, actually use weaver in a real gunfight under stress. The modern iso techniques are patterned on not just efficiency, but working with how people react under stress, not fighting it.

SteyrAUG

06-22-10, 15:56

I did not make any assumptions about your qualifications. I have just seen enough people who think a technique does not work for them when the reality is they are either not doing it right, or do not practice it enough to "get it." This is not only with shooting. It applies to lots of fields.

Unless you have a physical deformity or ride around on an electric cart or weigh 450lbs, I am guessing that you could learn the modern iso techniques and become proficient in them and eventually end up better off. And also more prepared. It seems no one, even weaver experts, actually use weaver in a real gunfight under stress. The modern iso techniques are patterned on not just efficiency, but working with how people react under stress, not fighting it.

Let me try it again.

What I have discovered is iso works against and is in conflict with a body dynamic that is the result of 30+ years of development. What I have found is the Weaver and similar shooting stances are supported by my body dynamic and iso is not.

It would take me quite a bit more than 6 months to work against my personal body dynamic. As weaver allows me to shoot as well or better than most of my shooting peers, I don't see any reason to abandon it.

Iso may very well have certain advantages, but those benefits are not significant enough for me to scrap 30+ years of development.

thopkins22

06-22-10, 16:50

Could all be very true. The problem is, I have personal limitations when it comes to iso. So while the technique might hold greater advantages for most over weaver, for me it is an inhibitor.

Makes perfect sense to me.

NCPatrolAR

06-22-10, 17:26

Hey guys; lets move past the Weaver/Iso thing. Its starting to be non-productive.

Magsz

06-24-10, 16:14

Complication

06-24-10, 18:58

The only thing that i dont like about this topic is that most people seem to be relating experiences with older gentlemen.

Im 26 years old and generally one of the younger shooters at our club nights. Sure, there are older gents there that fall into the same kind of mentality being discussed in this thread but let me tell you something. Amongst my "peers" this attitude is the absolute norm, its frightening.

There is so much ego floating around amongst the youth of today its disgusting. I firmly believe that Ego should never, ever enter the picture when firearms are involved. Keep the ego on the MMA mat...

I think this is generally true of most things and doesn't always have to do with age.

Nietzsche has this terrific quote: "Half-knowledge is more victorious than whole knowledge: it understands things as being more simple than they are and this renders its opinions more easily intelligible and more convincing."

I saw it a lot in college. I studied religion at a school predominantly filled with engineers. One of the required courses for me was a survey course which covered 7 or 8 religions in a 16 week semester. It also happened to be a popular "easy humanities" course for engineers trying to satisfy their distribution requirements.

So you got a lot of angry Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins aethist types thinking that because they spent 2 weeks (6 hours of class) learning about a religion, they knew everything there was to know about it and were happy to make incredibly simplistic, retarded statements like "What has Christianity done for anyone? The Pope's a Nazi and priests **** little boys" just because they read a chapter about Catholicism in a world religions textbook (because a religion is no more complex than that... right?)

It wasn't just that they were set in their ways (which I'm sure many were), it was that they didn't accept the fact that there might be a shitload more to know about a subject than they already possessed between their ears.

I think real learning begins after recognizing your own ignorance about a subject (whether its academic, job-related, or shooting) and have an "oh shit, that wasn't even remotely close to being on my radar" or an "holy crap, I thought I was hot shit, but damn, I suck" moment.

You got the ego bit right on. Once you're prepared to accept that there's way more to learn than you're ever going to get around to learning, you can really start paying attention to what people are teaching you and focus on doing it right. Otherwise you're that guy on the range who won't shut up about his 1911 and how its such a manly gun and, as long as you're carrying one, everything you do is right, even though you're shooting 12" groups at 10 yards and the guy next to you is drilling one ragged hole with his "faggy" 9mm.

LHS

06-24-10, 21:17

When I was a little boy, I thought that my dad knew all there was to know about shooting. And yet, he constantly went to classes, from just about everyone, all over the country. I asked him, if he was so good, why did he need to keep going to classes? His response was one of those little aphorisms that just rings true:

"Nobody can teach you everything, but everyone can teach you something."

ROGOPGEAR

06-24-10, 22:02

if it weren't for egos and pride, this world would be a beautiful place.

I just participated in my first competition last weekend, and one of the old guys was talking about his blog so I checked it out when I got home. He reviews a lot of firearms products, gives advice on shooting gear and techniques, basically runs a professed subject matter expert firearms blog. well, long story short, I laughed to myself reading his posts because I, being a semi-noob and at my first competition, obliterated him. just makes me shake my head.

but to me the worst thing, is the pride that stands in the way of people like this and their acquiring new knowledge/skills. that same match while he was expounding upon his great knowledge, I was checking out the real shooters, and flooding them with questions. I learned so much about competition shooting in that one day it was amazing.