G&R Tactical
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 94

Thread: Times change, do you?

  1. #21
    ToddG Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinh View Post
    Sometimes I think I would be better off just choosing a system and training exclusively with that instructor/school.
    There's good and bad in that.

    I tell students all the time, go take classes elsewhere. As long as you know what you're doing and you're confident, it's never a bad thing to get exposed to different viewpoints. Try it, assess it, decide, move on. If you know three ways to hold a pistol, use the one that gives you the best results today. Six months from now if you feel you've hit a plateau, look back at some of the things you discarded. Will any of them help you past that plateau? You might already know a "better way" ...

    On the other hand, if you go to three different schools that teach three radically divergent approaches to things, you're killing yourself. You can't practice Weaver for a month, then Iso for a month, then CAR for a month, and expect to have a grasp of any of it.

    The most important thing, not to sound cliche, is don't sweat the small stuff. If Instructor-A tells you to stand completely square to the target and Instructor-B tells you to blade off 10 degrees, just do whatever feels/works best. If the instructor is absolutely unrelenting and insistent, do it his way during class and then, if you feel it's necessary, switch back. But consider not going back to an instructor who absolutely insists you do something in a way you know won't work for you.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post

    On the other hand, if you go to three different schools that teach three radically divergent approaches to things, you're killing yourself. You can't practice Weaver for a month, then Iso for a month, then CAR for a month, and expect to have a grasp of any of it.
    I agree, but...

    There's also now three methods that you've tried, and hopefully tried enough to get an idea of what works for you, and what you want to focus on. If you reach that point and have figured out which is your chosen method, then you can start to look for other instructors that fall within that method but also offer other pieces of the pie.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinh View Post
    Physical fitness
    Weight training, or at the very least, regular PT is extremely important. The bigger and stronger you are, the better you can shoot. I would say that routine pushups, situps, pullups, and running improved my shooting more than anything else. I still need to do weight training to improve shooting speed.
    I don't know that I agree with the "bigger and stronger" portion, but certainly the premise of physical fitness. And it's not just about being able to get through a class, it's about reality. And the reality is that virtually everyone you see on the line next to you in a training class is going to die of bad health choices they have made and NOT from anything that they could prevent with the skills they are learning that day.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    25,960
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinh View Post
    Physical fitness
    Weight training, or at the very least, regular PT is extremely important. The bigger and stronger you are, the better you can shoot. I would say that routine pushups, situps, pullups, and running improved my shooting more than anything else. I still need to do weight training to improve shooting speed.
    I think a fitness standard is perhaps a better way to go then simply getting as big as you can. One should be able to bench 110% of his weight and at least run 2 miles without passing out before he worries if his rail covers will match his UBR stock.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,143
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    This thread has struck me again with something I have learned-
    Handy catch-phrases are usually wrong.

    Here are two that came readily-

    "Slow is smooth. Smooth is fast."
    Slow is slow. Efficient is smooth. Performing an inefficient movement slowly does not make it fast. The goal is to increase efficiency while decreasing time required to correctly perform an action. It takes a conscious effort to make yourself push to failure, reassemble yourself, and pick back up. You don't get fast by just going slow.
    If I ruled the world, the quote would be, "Smooth is efficient, and efficiency is effectiveness."

    "Advanced techniques are nothing but mastery of the fundamentals."
    Eh, kinda. I would however, prefer if exactly what "advanced techniques" they are talking about, and what they consider to be "fundamental". Ask the instructors of four different disciplines of shooting what the findamentals are, and what they consider to be mastery would yield four very different answers.
    Once again, if I ruled the world the quote would be changed to,
    "Advanced techniques are nothing more than the proficient application of the fundamentals applied rapidly to ensure effective timely delivery of bullets while moving in or to unconventional and uncomfortable positions, firing at unusual angles at moving lethal threats, and doing so with aplomb."

    Topic shift
    Building the tool-box.
    It is a common occurence for people to go to different courses to form the basis of their marksmanship proficiency. I have never attended a course that was identical to any other course. Good courses, while rarely claiming to be "the" way will usually explain that their way is simply "a" way, usually explained when a student points out a preceived flaw in a technique or to say that so and so does is differently. It's usually a simple way to get the student to be quiet and let them get on with the teaching. It's unfortunate that so many prefer to concede their choice as a decent program will be laid out to work in a specific skill-flow.

    Example- a school teaches engaging from cover with skill X. Student prefers skill Y, taught somewhere else. Instructors do the whole "A" way, not the "the" way, "tool in the toolbox" song and dance, and the student continues on with skill Y. Now the course moves onto kinetically supported dynamic movement into cover. Now the student's Y skill set falls apart because the other place he went to did not cover this, and he finds out that skill Y sucks for this. At this point he is behind the power-curve, and will either have to admit that he was wrong and try to learn skill X, or try to make skill Y fit. Either way, he is not going to get much out of this portion of the course other than to discover that he sucks, that he needs to reconsider his chosen skill-sets, or bad-mouth the course lest others find out that he sucks.

    What this boils down to is to follow what the course lays out before making random choices before undertanding the whole picture. Building a tool collection of metric snap-on tools and then throwing in a handful of standard bolts isn't going to do much for the usability of the existing set. Compatability issueas are not limited to computers.

    Anyway, I don't mean to preach or lecture, just some things that came to mind and I am more than happy to discuss if anyone disagrees.

    My parting thought (it was kinda nudged to the surface by a statement from SSFD from lightfighter)-
    I do not train simply to be better than my anticipated adversary. I train to be the best. I strive to be better than I was yesterday.
    Last edited by Failure2Stop; 06-29-09 at 15:32. Reason: leaving thought
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

    Director of Training

    FB@ Facebook.com/F2SConsultingLLC
    As accurate as needed, as fast as possible, as many times as it takes.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,795
    Feedback Score
    0
    F2S, I agree with much of what you have to say about building the "toolbox" but would like to add, that anyone who attends a course with such a myopic mindset, is wasting their time, money and a valuable training resource (The course he/she has signed up for). If a student is unwilling, unable, or incapable of grasping the course content, because of brain lock, personal stubbornness, preference, or "cult following" of a previous training methodology, then it is his loss and no amount of new skill training will change his mindset. On the other hand, a good student will absorb all the available information presented, then mold that info, along with previous training (Toolbox), to choose which TTPs to apply, which are (here's another catch phase) "situationally dependent" to his/her's, own particular set of circumstances. Variety in training, I feel, is a key to learning.

    Your sigline says it all.
    For God and the soldier we adore, In time of danger, not before! The danger passed, and all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier slighted." - Rudyard Kipling

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,175
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Being a young shooter, I feel like this is a golden age of shooting (but hearing stories of the soldier of fortune days from the '80s have me rethinking this ). You have an explosion in the AR market, and while there is a high chaff-to-wheat ratio, it is a great environment to introduce new people to the sport.

    Looking at it from a more practical standpoint, which is admittedly out of my area of expertise, there is a wealth of training resources available as well. You have all manner of instructors willing to train students, offering different techniques, philosophies, mindsets, without even exploring the differences of actual shooting advice, which are nearly endless. It;s a great time to be a student of the shooting sports. One day, hopefully in the next couple of years, I'd like to attend a few different classes, keeping in mind that one technique is not the answer, but rather a mix and match approach to your individual needs.

    Myself, these last few years I've not only been introduced to more formalized shooting (prior to this, it had all been plinking with .22's ), I've also been introduced to AR's and have shifted my techniques and thoughts along the way quite frequently.

    I can remember first shooting a pistol around 6 years ago, where my hits were off by as much as 3 feet at 25 yards from my intended target. After a long while of shooting with pointers from my grandfather, I shot 5 round strings for groups for a long, long, long time at various distances from 25-75 feet in an indoor range. I got a membership at an outdoor range around 3 years ago and was finally able to put my speed to the test, as I had no experience with shooting multiple targets until this point. Accuracy is king, and it shows when you shoot a stage clean. I'm particularly proud of my accuracy oriented background when it comes to pistol shooting, and I think its the main reason my skills are decent to this day. Unfortunately, I feel like I still have a lot of work to do on my speed.

    As for the AR, I've been back and forth on it so many times, I even went to the AK side for a while. I got my first AR back in the summer of 2004, and my first buys were an Aimpoint ML2 in a (then brand new) LT mount. A BUIS and VFG came later, and later still, a collapsible stock and flash suppressor.

    After that, I took a detour to the darkside, bought a WASR10, and convinced myself that the AK was some sort of uber-weapon... It wasn't long after I had access to an outdoor range where I could shoot past 25 yards that my opinion took a drastic turn back to the AR.

    It wasn't until around 3 years ago that I started taking shooting seriously, and even later still that I started realizing that having a tricked out gun does not a good shooter make. Putting my mind in the place that performance counts, not looks, helped a lot. Prior to this, guns had simply been a fun hobby, but now, they were growing to be a key part of what I did.

    My VFG went from being very close in to the magwell, to around 2 years ago, moving out to the end of my 13.2" rail, to now coming back in towards the middle of the same rail. The key, IMHO is not simply placement, but your ability to manage that placement to do what you need. Your light placement, your hand placement, your shooting style, will all play a role in how you configure your gun. Figure out these needs first, then put your VFG wherever you need it, even you even need one at all. I find the stubby FUG to be great to put my hand more in line with a 11 oclock light mount I use, so I keep it.

    Lately, I've come to realize that adaptability is king. You should never get too attached to any stance, grip, technique, as at the end of the day, its the performance that counts. I've gone from squared up sub-gun stance, to bladed 3-gun stance, back to a slightly, slightly bladed isosceles stance when shooting my carbine. I've gone from weaver, to straight arm isosceles, to bent elbow isosceles for shooting pistols. (oddly enough, at roughly the same times I've switched my carbine stances as well) I've changed my grip on my AR from comfortable hogue, to MIAD with palmswell, to slick backstrap as well. I've also changed my pistol grip from thumbs down, to thumbs high, and dropped my Martin Riggs forefinger grasp as well.

    What works today may be good enough to get the job done, whether that's shooting the stage or putting bullets where you need them when your life is on the line. But tomorrow there will be a better way, the question is, are you going to be attached to what you did today, or will you be looking to be the best, and be willing to try it out?
    Aimpoint M4S- Because your next Aimpoint battery hasn't been made yet.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,829
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rharris2163 View Post
    On the other hand, a good student will absorb all the available information presented, then mold that info, along with previous training (Toolbox), to choose which TTPs to apply, which are (here's another catch phase) "situationally dependent" to his/her's, own particular set of circumstances. Variety in training, I feel, is a key to learning.
    That leads me to something I should have mentioned in my initial post:

    One of the most important things that I've learned over the years is what I dub the "Turn, Turn!" philosophy....named after that great song by the Byrds.

    "....a time for immediate action, a time to seek cover! A time to shoot, a time to just run! A time to cast away mags! A time to keep spent mags on your person!"

    The ability to read a situation properly, pull the right "tool" from the "toolbox" and apply it effectively is ultimately what all this is about.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Southwest PA
    Posts
    6,311
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by John_Wayne777 View Post
    One of the most important things that I've learned over the years is what I dub the "Turn, Turn!" philosophy....named after that great song by the Byrds.
    One of those useless interjections...

    That's actually the Bible, Ecclesiastes.
    It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy. -Ethan Allen

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,829
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutshot John View Post
    One of those useless interjections...

    That's actually the Bible, Ecclesiastes.
    Yes, but Solomon didn't have the benefit of Richenbacher guitars and a bitchin' guitar riff.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •