Times change, do you?

[Heavy Metal]

Careful JW, you are eight miles high and falling fast!

[FMF_Doc]

The most important thing I have learned is that I can perform under extreme conditions, accomplish my mission of bringing troops home alive.

Both my medical skills and weapons skills are far beyond what I ever thought was possible and I am very proficient as a healer and shooter.

I survived getting shot in 2005 (training accident, shot by another soldier) and drove on, although no longer as a service member I got med boarded due to permanent damage that they decided would prevent me from further service. The last life I saved in the field was my own.

[epf]

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.

This may be the most overlooked factor in the "tactical" community. Specifically for non-military types who are not forced into a daily PT routine.

Any fight is inherently physical. Whether you have been punched in the face or taken fire on a patrol, if the fight is not over after the first exchange, it becomes an endurance test.

We are fortunate to live in a time when techniques have been vetted and shared due to our ability to communicate and archive information in places like this site. The best technique will break down quickly if you are not physically prepared.

[markm]

The best technique will break down quickly if you are not physically prepared.

Exactly. Run 50 yards, jump a wall and then take that rife or pistol shot. It starts to become a lot different.

[FMF_Doc]

I still practice shooting and moving wearing my plate carrier and gear (helmet, pads, Molle gear) if you don't train with your equipment you aren't really training, just wasting ammo.

[rob_s]

Finally, even though I am still training with it and mucking around with it, I've come to the conclusion that carbine is a waste of time for 99% of us. It's enjoyable because it's flashy and easy (or at least easier) and there's more to do in terms of bolt-ons and support gear, but the carbine is not my primary. For virtually everyone outside the military they should be focusing on the handgun, and their carry handgun at that. Practicing with a 5" 1911 and carrying a S&W snubbie isn't much better than wasting a lot of time with the carbine. This isn't to say that the carbine is totally useless, or that one shouldn't train with it, but I see a trend where people spend 90% of their training time and dollars on carbine ant 10% on handgun, when IMHO that ratio should be inverted.

So with all of the above said, I have a couple of carbine classes I want to hit in '10, but handgun is really where I want to focus, and I want to focus on it with a new group of people and get exposed to more and different dogmas.

Feel free to skip the ramblings and jump down to The Point! below.

Someone was nice enough to send me a PM and point out that they think there's a ring of hypocrisy in the above. They point out that, with two carbine courses left to take this year, and two I want to take next year, that I'd have to then take 18 handgun classes in 2009 and another 18 in 2010 in order to achieve my 90/10 split.

They also point out that of those four classes, two of them will be with instructors who have "spent time out west", something I say I'm trying to break away from, and that taking classes with these two is also hypocritical.

There are three reasons for my inferred hypocrisy.

The first is that the realization that I have largely been mis-focusing my training dollars and time is a very recent one for me. It wasn't really until this year that it started to dawn on me, and I had originally signed up for two handgun classes in the first part of the year in order to start to address this. A family emergency kept me from attending those classes and that timetable got pushed back, to the point that the first of those classes just happened last month.

The second is that I'm frankly having a hard time finding quality handgun instruction that I think is cost-effective and that works with my schedule. Yes, I could fly out to Gunsite for a week, or to any of the traveling shows around the country when they occur on a date that works for me, but I don't think that's cost effective. Instead I'm trying to find instructors that can come to my area or that will be close enough by to be cost effective and involve as little downtime as possible. Since everything these days is carbine carbine carbine, and that's what's driving the market it's hard to get enough people interested in doing something hard when they can do something easy and still call it "training".

The third, which goes directly to the second, is that if there is an instructor coming to my area that I've been wanting to train with but that is doing a carbine instead of a handgun, then I have to make a decision to either pass up that opportunity or take the class. I'll typically (calendar and finances willing) take the class. Kyle Lamb, for example, will hopefully be coming to Florida again early next year. I hope that he comes for handgun, but if he comes for carbine then that's what I'll sign up for.

But ultimately I think the premise is flawed. The whole supposition is based on an idea that the only training is formalized training with a recognized instructor for 2-3 days. IMHO, and back to the topic of the thread at hand, if formalized instruction is your only training then you're screwed. I see it all the time at classes with the guys that take a class, go home and never touch the gun, and then come back and take another class, go home and never touch the gun, etc. They never improve. Sure, they're better on TD3 than they were on TD1, but come next year's TD1 they're back where they started.

Again on topic, I have come to the realization that formal instruction should be only a small part of your overall training regimen. If a shooter takes 24 hours of pistol instruction and 24 hours of rifle instruction in a year the impression could be that the focus is equal. However if that same shooter spends 15 minutes every day with the handgun doing dryfire practice and an hour a month at the indoor range working on their marksmanship, their total hours for the year are 111 (300 days x 15 minutes a day plus 24 hours instruction plus 12 monthly training sessions) hours of pistol training vs. 24 of carbine at the class. Not quite to that 90/10 split I suggest, but a hell of a lot closer than it may appear. And the focus is clearly largely on the gun that should be getting the focus.

The Point!

Which brings me to my point vis-a-vis this thread, which is that training doesn't end when the certificates are handed out on TD3. What you spent 3 days doing was getting the tools you need to go home and continue training on your own. Once upon a time I thought that all I needed to do was go to class, then come home and sit on my ass until the next one, and my skills would automatically magically appear. Nope. You have to keep working on things away from class. And coincidentally even if you think there should be an equal emphasis on carbine and handgun, the handgun skills are tougher to master and perish quicker, and therefore require more training time invested to even keep the same level of skill with both guns.

So while I don't think this revelation is due to times changing, I certainly have.

[Jay Cunningham]

which is that training doesn't end when the certificates are handed out on TD3. What you spent 3 days doing was getting the tools you need to go home and continue training on your own. Once upon a time I thought that all I needed to do was go to class, then come home and sit on my ass until the next one, and my skills would automatically magically appear. Nope. You have to keep working on things away from class. And coincidentally even if you think there should be an equal emphasis on carbine and handgun, the handgun skills are tougher to master and perish quicker, and therefore require more training time invested to even keep the same level of skill with both guns.

Which could be a whole separate thread. There is *training*, and then there is *practice*. Some seem to think that a quest to rack up as much documented training time as possible will get them to where they want to be. Yet they don't dry-fire, nor do they go to the practice range with a shot timer or plan.

[YVK]

I actually have had hard time getting into a reputable pistol class this year. Carbine has not been a problem - feels like supply is larger here. Actually, this appears to have been a pattern for a few years. My round count ratio is 4:1 pistol to carbine, but most of pistol shooting done by myself, while almost all carbine shooting is done in classes.

The second is that I'm frankly having a hard time finding quality handgun instruction that I think is cost-effective and that works with my schedule. Yes, I could fly out to Gunsite for a week, or to any of the traveling shows around the country when they occur on a date that works for me, but I don't think that's cost effective. Instead I'm trying to find instructors that can come to my area or that will be close enough by to be cost effective and involve as little downtime as possible. Since everything these days is carbine carbine carbine, and that's what's driving the market it's hard to get enough people interested in doing something hard when they can do something easy and still call it "training".

So there are at least two of us who feel that supply/demand is disproportionally shifted towards carbine training. Somebody who knows how to aim fast shoot fast needs to get busier...

[ToddG]

Which brings me to my point vis-a-vis this thread, which is that training doesn't end when the certificates are handed out on TD3. What you spent 3 days doing was getting the tools you need to go home and continue training on your own. Once upon a time I thought that all I needed to do was go to class, then come home and sit on my ass until the next one, and my skills would automatically magically appear. Nope. You have to keep working on things away from class.

I run into this quite often. Whether it's the M4C forumite who's taking ten classes a year but never goes to the range otherwise or the private lesson student I've got who literally wants to pay me to watch him shoot 2-3 times per week, you're doing it wrong.

I don't want to turn away money, but seriously ... there is no way you have absorbed everything taught in a 2-3 day class without spending some Me time on the range practicing. At a minimum, you need to put an equal number of rounds downrange between classes as you're shooting at classes. And really, the ratio should be more like 5:1.

If I teach a class in June, and a student from that class also signs up for the same exact class when it's taught in July, what does that tell me? OK, nice ego stroke ... the dude liked what he saw and wants to come back. Yea me! But, how lousy a job must I have done if the guy needs to sit through all those lectures, all that instruction again just one month later. He's already determined he needs to do it all over again ... before he's even tried to do it on his own. Boo me.

You want to come back next year? Great. Let's see how well you've adopted & adapted. You shoot a lot on your own and want to come back in six months? Hey, I'm not going to argue ... I'm not running a non-profit business. But keep things in perspective. If you're doing most things well and just have a hitch in your reload technique or something, a full blown week at Gunny World probably isn't an efficient training methodology.

Even when you talk about guys from serious HSLD units, it's the ones who take the intense training they get and practice it on their own time who become the outstanding shooters. Because once you know what you're supposed to be doing, you need time to work out the details on your own. You don't need to sit through 15 hours of draws, marksmanship, speed, & tactics if you know your problem is that you've got a frakked up reload. You've been taught how to do it right, now go practice it.

Having said all that, I do think there is a value in going back and doing basic-level courses once in a while. For the first ten years or so of my shooting "career" I took at least one level-1 type class every single year. It serves as a good check. Sometimes in the quest to go fast and be cool, we develop bad habits about things like, oh, hitting the target on demand.

So there are at least two of us who feel that supply/demand is disproportionally shifted towards carbine training. Somebody who knows how to aim fast shoot fast needs to get busier...

Have lesson plan, will travel ...



... or perhaps ...

[Submariner]

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

I see "training" as something conducted in front of someone who can offer on-the-spot correction of skill sets which are being performed incorrectly.

"Perfect practice makes perfect." Louis Awerbuck

"Practice makes permanent." Pat Rogers

"Practice" is what one does on one's own to perfect the skill sets and make them permanent.

Yeah, they both spent time out west. When we started doing this seriously around 2002, there were not as many choices as today.

We can afford to do one class per year and practice what we learned in between. (I had four, now six, people shooting.) Choosing a "school/doctrine" and returning each year gets us an appraisal of how well we've done over the year. If the instructor is good, i.e. he trains as well and his course evolves and improves, then we learn new skill sets as they are incorporated. "A way," not "the way."

And yes, we are shooting pistol more, subject to availability of 9mm. It really goes back to Rob's old sig line regarding what you want to do and how much you can spend to do it. Money, discretionary income for most here, drives the training/practice train.