I taught 4 blocks: 2 AIWB Skills (live fire), 1 panel with Lee Weems & Erick Gelhaus, and my presentation on Minimum Competency. I participated in 1 live fire class, and observed a few presentations. I stunk up the match. Of course, being able to hang with “the family” for a few days is what makes this awesome. So many hugs given and received – my heart is full.
I first presented at TacCon21. Tom asked me to step in for brother Spencer Keepers (Spencer had some medical issues to tend to; all good). I was quite surprised yet honored to be asked. My imposter syndrome skyrocketed to 11. I was honored to be asked back for TacCon22.
AIWB Skills went over well. Saturday lunch, Scott Jedlinski asked me if I had any open slots in my Sunday class – I did, and Scott joined. Imposter syndrome 12. It was cool tho. My first time really hanging with Scott – my fellow large Asian mammal – and it was good. He gave me some excellent feedback, and taught me the meaning of “cheater”. 😉
Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol is something I’ve been researching since 2013. I presented my original work, along with my recent thinking. I also presented my “Minimum Competency Assessment” and thinking behind it. My present thinking is to write this up in long form and update my “Drills, Standards, Qualifications, & Tests” eBook. Matter of time and priorities. Stay tuned.
The Aftermath, my panel presentation with Lee & Erick. This was… special. I spoke about my 2015 home invasion. Erick about his incident. Lee about 2 incidents his deputies were involved in. Funny thing about this is we did barely any planning/organization work prior to TacCon: each made a few slides, Lee collated, Lee projected them… and then the 3 of us stood in front of the audience figuring out how we wanted to do this presentation. 😂 I went first, then Erick, finally Lee, each giving a short account of our incident focusing heavily on issues of the aftermath. Erick turned to me and asked if he could reference one of my slides (of course!). Before today, Erick and I were strangers to each other. Our stories are different, yet our aftermaths are similar. We didn’t plan our presentation, and I think the organic nature of it all made for a special and emotional session. Erick and I (and those deputies) are in a club, for better or worse. I’m fortunate to have found a new brother. Love you, Erick.
Shot the match with my franken-P365: WC XL grip, curved trigger, P365 slide with irons. Scored paper: 245/250, tie: 35/50 4.49 sec: 252.795. Finished 76/174. On paper, dropped the first WHO shot to just outside the box; tie had 3 just outside 6 o’clock. With that gun, basically cold, after the emotional drain I just went through? If this is where my skill degrades to, I can accept that.
Took class from Wayne Dobbs (HiTS) channeling Larry Mudgett; most excellent stuff, giving me new tools to diagnose problems and help students improve. The excellent learning resources Jon & Sarah Hauptman (PHLster) are producing through their Concealment Workshop will become industry reference. I finally got to partake of John Holschen’s wisdom. I listened to Erick present research. Greg Ellifritz had an informative session on medicine under austere circumstances. Good learning being had.
And of course, seeing old friends, making so many new ones. Eating good food. Having to eat Whataburger. Many many selfies. Endless hugs. More selfies. Hot AF tents (Meadhall Range cookies!). Going to bed late and getting up early. Big thanks to the Dallas Pistol Club for the facility and contribution. Thanks to Tiffany Johnson, Martin Hoffert, Aqil Qadir, the RSOs, the crew. And of course, Tom & Lynn Givens of Rangemaster. What a special event; I am truly blessed to be a part of it. ❤️
Next week is TacCon22. I am presenting 4 blocks on 3 topics: 2 AIWB Skills live fire blocks, 1 panelist with Erick Gelhaus and Lee Weems on “The Aftermath”, 1 presenter on my pet project: “Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol” including presenting new thinking on the topic. I’d be lying if I wasn’t a little stressed. 😬
When Tom Givens asked me to step in for Spencer Keepers at TacCon21, of course I answered “Yes, sir!”. My imposter syndrome spiked to 11. But I presented 3 live fire blocks and I guess I didn’t totally suck because I was asked back for TacCon22. I’m almost finished with my prep (as prepped as I can be). It’s been stressful, but I know the Conference will be good.
Some people are surprised to learn I’m not an extrovert. Sure, I’m good at peopleing, but it consumes a lot of energy, and I need alone/quiet time to recharge (introvert). TacCon is a LOT of peopleing. It’s good, I have a great time, but it’s still a lot of peopleing. Then the added energy of teaching (“being on stage”), and it’s a draining time for me. Doing the math on that right now is building up some anxiety. I know it’ll all be fine and I’ll live, nevertheless I’ve had the stress-tick of bouncing my foot/leg creeping back in.
The Aftermath stresses me minorly. I’ve told this story before, so it’s a matter of ensuring I mind time constraints and ensure topic mindfulness. That’s all that gets me. Plus it’ll be nice to meet Erick.
AWIB Skills stresses me a bit more, but not tons. I developed the curriculum, but I don’t get to run it much so it’s not as “in my head” as say a KR Training Defensive Pistol Skills 1 class. I also made some iterative refinements, and I think it’ll work better this year. One lesson from last year? Print it out, put it on a clipboard – I can do it from my head, but there’s a lot of details to convey so having a reference on-demand is good.
But the presentation about Minimum Competency? That’s got me stressed. It’s not the public speaking part – I’m good at that. It’s the topic – but meta stuff about the topic. The original blog post has been around since 2013 and the reprint in our 2019 book. I reckon if I was totally off base someone might have called my ass out by now? Or maybe no one gives a shit – my brain naturally gravitates towards the latter. Thing is, I termed the session “a discussion” because I want to present but I want to then open the floor. I want to be questioned! The audience is the right one to ask this to, but I’d be lying if I wasn’t a little intimidated by the potential of who may be in the audience and the questions that may be asked. But that’s what I want and why I’m doing it. I want to seek truth, this is how we get there. It’s uncomfortable to go through, but ain’t gonna grow otherwise.
It’ll be a good time. I’ll be thankful for it when it’s over, but right now I’m prepping and managing my stress/anxiety about it. 😄
There’s a video of Tom Givens explaining the Parrot Drill and how the 8″ circle is shot quickly, the 4″ is carefully, the 2″ precisely. His choice of words matters – not just in instruction, but actual cues to use under those conditions.
For a while now, when I administer the Texas LTC Completion and live-fire qualify people for their LTC, when we’re at 3 yards I tell them to shoot quickly. When we step back to 7 yards, I tell them to shoot carefully. When we’re back at 15 yards I tell them to shoot precisely.
I don’t have to explain some new gun-world concept; they know what I mean by those words. Just uttering those cues absolutely changes the mindset about how the students think and approach what’s before them. It’s an effective teaching tool, that leads students to improved performance (outcomes). I SEEN it!
Look up The Complete Combatant’s drill: The Trifecta.
Individuals who successfully complete this program will be certified as Force Science Analysts. This designation attests that the holder has been trained to recognize and articulate important psychological, biological, and physiological factors that can influence human behavior and memory in force encounters and pursuit situations. Like persons trained in accident reconstruction, blood-spatter analysis, and other science-based disciplines, investigators certified in Force Science Analysis will be able to apply their grasp of human dynamics to interpret how and why a force confrontation evolved as it did. Students will also know how to mine the memories of those involved for relevant recollections. This information can be vital to authorities who ultimately must judge the encounter, such as administrators, internal affairs, chiefs, review board members, prosecutors, judges, and jurors.
For years, FSI courses were only available to people directly involved in law enforcement. But about 2 years ago, they opened it up to non-LEO. I’ve been wanting to take this course for a number of years, and am happy I was finally able to.
The course was held in the Doubletree Hotel conference room on the north side of Austin (hooray! I got to commute up and down I-35 for a week!). 8:30 to 5:30 for 4 days, and 8:30 to about 1:00 on the last day. There were 112 or so people in class. Overwhelmingly most were LEO, but I know at least 4 people were not: myself, my fellow KR Training instructor Tracy Thronburg, Marty Hayes (of Firearms Academy of Seattle, and Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network), and Andrew Branca (Law of Self Defense). I had no idea Marty was going to be there (Marty’s a friend), and no idea Andrew was either (first time meeting and speaking with him). From a quick scan of the room, most LEO were from Texas agencies, but there were others – I believe 1 attendee had flown in from Australia.
We were provided a large, printed/bound book, of all the lecture slides. That was a nice touch, making it easy to take notes as well as having a solid reference on your bookshelf for later. With 40 hours of drinking from the information firehose, there’s no way you can remember everything, so the bound notes book is a welcome touch for memory retention and future reference.
Each day was divided into topics. Some topics would receive a couple hours of treatment, such as how the brain works (to help us understand how memory works, how sensory perception works), how vision works. Some topics would receive multi-day coverage, such as biomechanics, although this was broken up to cover many sub-topics.
And yes, there is a (closed-book) test. We took it just before lunch on the 4th day. It covered all topics presented to that point, and yes it was a requirement for certification (all people in our class passed, but I am to understand there have been failures in prior classes).
I appreciated the content provided. Yes, it was mostly provided from the perspective of law-enforcement, but that stands to reason. But as someone who trains private citizens, how applicable is this to me and my students?
Fairly well, actually.
What’s studied and presented is mostly about human beings. How we work, how we function, our capabilities, our limits. It doesn’t matter if you’re a police officer, a CEO, a farmer, a software developer – humans are human. Our senses, our brains, they only can do so much and work so fast.
You see how a lot of human performance research is based in sports performance. I think that also makes it great for helping people that might not understand (or want to understand) performance in a “use of force” context understand that this isn’t just “research to help cops find excuses to murder people”. No, this is just how people work, and this research is aimed to explain how people function in the context of use-of-force. Certainly this information and research could be used to keep someone out of jail, or put someone in jail; it’s information, not agenda nor bias.
Some presented material was certainly specific to law enforcement, but it was still welcome to see that information and gain knowledge and insight into those aspects. Because still for my students, if they are involved in a use-of-force incident themselves, they will interact with law enforcement so having such insight is useful.
For me, I found the information going through two filters.
First, that of an instructor. As of this writing, I have about 850 hours of formal training in this realm and have been teaching at KR Training for about 11 years. A lot of this material isn’t new to me, but that’s fine. I always appreciate hearing such things again, because there’s always some new twist, some new detail, some new angle in the material and how it is presented that provides me with greater reinforcement, clarity, depth, and understanding of the topic. But for sure, a good deal of information was new.
I found myself thinking about our curriculum, what we teach, how we teach it. I think about the questions students tend to ask and the way they are typically answered. I found myself both affirming much of what we already do as sound and good approaches, but also making adjustments to word choice or emphasis. For example, it was frequently stressed the importance of “if you expect to perform at X, you need to train at X”. Let me explain.
Let’s say I wanted to become a top-class swimmer, like Olympic gold medalist. Well, if I want to do that, I don’t think power walking on a treadmill will get me there – I have to swim. Extreme example, but I hope you’re following the reasoning. But I shouldn’t just swim, like the seniors doing “adult swim” laps at the YMCA. I need to swim hard. I need to swim in races against other people (which is implicitly a timer). I need that sort of pressure, to have my training mirror the environment, situation, context, everything of that moment of actual performance (the actual swim meet and race).
So if I expect to be able to perform in a gunfight, I need to have my training mirror the environment, situation, context, everything about that situation that one can safely mirror in training. This means pressure, this means training like scenarios/Force-on-Force. This sort of training will help me be better prepared and improve my chances of performing well.
This isn’t then so much a realization that we need to change what we do – we’re already teaching and promoting this (my boss-man Karl Rehn is one of the modern pioneers of force-on-force training). This is more to those who don’t think you need such training, that do things like poo-poo shot-timers, yet still think they are adequately training people for “that moment”. There’s science that says you’re doing it wrong.
The second filter? I won’t go into too much detail, but my personal incident of January 2015 served as another filter and perspective through the whole week. This is the sort of thing that, if you’re curious for my thoughts here, we can talk in person. It’s not bad, it’s just nuanced and I don’t think I can adequately convey in a blog post.
It’s not all rosy
Overall I was pleased with the course, but there were a few things I didn’t find optimal.
First, it’s just a LOT of information in a short period of time. There’s no way to remember it all. The book is nice, but it’s just the presentation slides and room for notes. And you will take notes, but the note-taking process divides your attention and you miss things. I wish there was a better way to manage the information density.
Second, it is death by PowerPoint. But at least the speakers were all dynamic, engaging, good story-tellers. They certainly captured and held the interest of the audience. But again, I’m not sure there’d be any other practical way to do accomplish the goal of this training.
Third, sometimes I wondered if this was about educating us on the material, or defending the validity of the work FSI does. Many times when Dr. Lewinski was speaking, he kept making a big point about who they did the research with (the researches, the Universities), what scientific journal – and the prestige of that journal – in which the research was published. That the FSI work was accepted by this court and that court and all these things. He would frequently sound like he was trying to convince us his word, his work, was all valid sound defensible science. Now I get it: there are a lot of critics of Dr. Lewinski and FSI’s work, so I’m sure his actions come from somewhere. But it just came across as too much. If you have to get this defensive, is the criticism valid? I mean, you have a room full of paying customers – I don’t expect this is an audience you need to convince. So it was curious and a little distracting. I think the point could have been made in a more subtle way, or by simply not bothering… because if in fact it is invalid, proper science will bear that out.
Should You Take This?
This information can be vital to authorities who ultimately must judge the encounter, such as administrators, internal affairs, chiefs, review board members, prosecutors, judges, and jurors.
So if you fall into that category, it’s likely useful to you.
But how about folks in my realm: private citizens?
If you’re “just a private citizen”, I don’t see much need to take this class. If you have the money, the time, the desire, there’s certainly nothing wrong with taking it and I won’t stop you. I just would consider it something like a “grad school level elective” – far from critical to take, and your finite time/money may be better spent elsewhere. More firearms training, first aid training, improving your physical fitness, and things like that may serve you better.
If you’re someone like me, a trainer/instructor, my answer is… maybe.
It depends on what sort of instructor/trainer you would be.
If you’re someone who is content to have their NRA Instructor credentials so you can help teach Boy Scout merit badges, the FSI training doesn’t make a lot of sense. (and note: there’s NOTHING wrong with being an instructor like that). If you just like teaching basic/introductory/familiarization courses to new shooters, you might find some utility here, but again it’s probably not worth your time/trouble/expense. If you’re purely interested in competition/sports, you would probably do well to learn about human performance dynamics, but the context the FSI course presents it in isn’t the correct context for you.
This material is useful for someone like me: someone deeply and earnestly interested in helping people learn how to manage themselves and perform at a high-level in situations of self-defense.
If I extend the above analogy, I’d consider this grad-school level course work. If you don’t have your “undergrad” credentials (e.g. NRA Instructor, higher-level instructor such as Rangemaster certified, MAG certified, CSAT, etc.), that should come first. If you don’t have a few years teaching at least some hundred students, that should come first. The presentation is certainly one expecting you to have some idea and experience in the topic realm. But I also don’t think it’s critical to one’s success to attend… it’s just like getting a Masters degree: not vital, but does take you further, deeper, into topics.
I’m certainly happy to have taken it, and know it will help me be a better teacher.
I want to thank Dr. Lewinski for the work he does, and his team of researchers and lecturers for all that they’re doing to help bring better understanding to the world about this topic. It’s good and important work.
It took 20 minutes for Austin Police to respond to a deadly stabbing on January 3, 2020.
Austin police said they received a call reporting a man with a large rock was verbally threatening people at Bennu Coffee on Congress around 7:50 a.m. When an officer arrived, about twenty minutes later, the suspect was being held down by customers inside.
“According to Emergency Communications Standard Operating Procedures for Priority 2 calls, dispatchers should send the two closest available units within five minutes of the call entering the queue. This did not occur and is part of the internal review,” police said in a statement.
I’m not going to get too hard on APD, dispatch, 911, whomever. Everyone involved is human, and that means mistakes can happen. It means that sometimes things just won’t go ideally.
Police say the suspect assaulted a customer at a coffee shop “for no apparent reason,” then ran to a nearby restaurant where he stabbed two people, before climbing up and jumping off the roof of the building.
Austin police credit Bennu Coffee customers for trying to subdue a suspect who later was accused of stabbing two people Friday, possibly preventing more violence.
“It was extremely important that they intervened and got involved and detained the individual,” said APD Sgt. David Daniels. “We don’t recommend individuals getting involved in a situation, but they chose to do that. And, it was helpful.”
It’s understandable APD isn’t going to recommend it. What’s good to see is the acknowledgement that swift decisive intervention – BY THE PEOPLE RIGHT THERE RIGHT THEN – helped stop bad things from continuing to happen.
Experts at Texas State University tell KXAN the average response time for police is three minutes.
I don’t know where they got their average. Latest data (Oct 2019) on APD response time for a “lights & sirens” top-priority call is an average of 8 minutes – up 10% from last year. And that’s average… your call may take longer. Couple that with fewer officers, the fast-rising Austin population and traffic, you better expect your call WILL take longer.
I don’t know how you regard three minutes (or maybe 8 minutes), as a lot or a little bit of time. But consider it’s basically the length of a typical song. So pick your favorite song – actually, pick a pop song you don’t like so we don’t create negative association. Now play that song. Listen to it from beginning to end with no pausing, no stopping short. When the song starts playing, imagine someone punching you in the face… maybe punching along with the beat. And I don’t mean friendly punches, but say Conor McGregor or Floyd Mayweather Jr. unleashing on you. Until the song is over. When the song ends, that’s when police show up to stop the beating.
That’s a long time. How much pain do you think you’ll be in? Or maybe not pain, but in the hospital? Dead?
Let’s try the same experiment, but this time you’ve got your biggest baddest friend in the other room. As soon as the music – and the punching – starts, your friend can rush in and stop the beating. Not much time will have passed, nor many punches thrown. I don’t know how much pain you’ll be in, but I’m sure it will be far less than the first scenario.
Let’s try the same experiment again. But this time, you know how you box, or at least dodge and weave and duck and run. When the music starts, you fight back. How does that change the outcome?
The ability to respond immediately (minimization of wait time) makes a BIG difference.
ALERRT emphasizes the need for civilian response training to better respond to mass attacks, teaching tactics on how to avoid and defend yourself in such situations. Since its inception, ALERRT estimates its training has been taught to at least 400,000 civilians nationwide.
“Sometimes it’s not a decision,” ALERRT Assistant Director John Curnutt added. “The decision has been made for you, because it is happening. You are going to do something or not. You are going to own a situation, or it’s going to own you. That’s the only option you have at that point.”
We all prefer to make our own choices and dislike when choices are made for us. But well-adjusted folks know sometimes life makes choices for us – how we respond to what life throws at us is what it’s all about, and the more we can do to be prepared to handle life’s eventualities makes a big difference.
Look… I’m not saying everyone needs to buy and carry guns. If that’s not your thing, that’s fine.
What I am saying is, you’ve been on this Earth long enough to know “shit happens”. And when it does, typically the sooner it can be addressed, the better the outcome. Why do you think it’s so important to learn CPR? Why is it a good idea to have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers? Can you look back on your life and think of a time where if you were just a little better prepared, some bad situation could have turned out better?
So if this means in 2020 you finally get certified in CPR, excellent! Or if after reading this you go change the batteries on your smoke detectors, great! And if it means you want to carry pepper spray, or become proficient with firearms, that’s fine too. The bottom line is working to make yourself a better and more capable person. So when the inevitable shit happens and you’re Johnny-on-the-spot, YOU will be able to make that positive difference instead of waiting for someone else to hopefully make the save.
This course is part 3 in the Rangemaster Instructor Development curriculum. You must have passed both prior courses (3-Day Instructor Development, Advanced Instructor) to be eligible to attend the Master course. Interesting to note that Tom Givens announced this course a little over a year in advance (around Oct. 31, 2018), and it sold out in 5 hours. It’s been a long wait.
Shawnee Outdoors (formerly the BDC Gun Room) was an excellent facility for hosting. Good sized and outfitted classroom. A 25-yard state-of-the-art indoor shooting range (with excellent air-handling). Fantastic lunchtime catering provided by our host, Jack Barrett. And being at a good range, there were supplies and gunsmithing available if needed. Plus, Bill Armstrong provided some supplies and barricades to help support the course curriculum.
The course was 3 days, Friday through Sunday. Each day started at 9:00 AM and scheduled to end at 6:00 PM, tho we tended to finish a bit early each day.
We had 18 candidates from 7 states (with Texas and Oklahoma strongly represented). Wide variety of equipment and styles (gun make/models, red dots vs. irons, IWB vs AIWB, etc.), but a make-up one might generally expect from such a group of people. That said, the complete equipment and supply list for class was a long one. Not only your usual carry gear and about 700 rounds of ammo, but a full size and small size revolver (think both a K-frame and J-frame), about 300 rounds of ammo for it, various revolver loading tools (speedloaders, speed strips, dump pouch), holsters for the revolvers (hip, pocket, ankle, etc.), mirror image holster/setup for your normal carry gear, “tactical” flashlight, and a drill (more on on that below). And of course, note-taking material; you will take lots of notes.
My gear, since people tend to be curious:
S&W M&P9 M2.0 4″ Compact. Apex DCAEK. Dawson Precision sights (0.100″ red fiber optic front, 0.125″ serrated black Charger rear)
Dark Star Gear Orion, with Dark Wing (AIWB holster)
My old Comp-Tac dual mag pouch (worn 9 o’clock)
Sig P365 with a Dark Star Gear Hitchhiker (brought due to initial course requirements; but wasn’t used).
Federal Syntech 9mm 124 grain
S&W Model 66 3″
JM Custom Kydex AIWB holster for a 4″ K-frame, 1.5″ PTD loops
Desantis pocket holster
My .38 Special reloads
HKS speedloaders (for both revolvers), TUFF speed strips (8-round)
Day 1 was mostly in the classroom. Tom gave his presentation on the history of modern pistolcraft, which I’ve seen/heard before but it’s so full of information it’s one you enjoy hearing again and again. The next block was not just about holster design, but specifically the evolution of retention in holsters. This was particularly interesting because it makes it evident how many people “innovating” today are unaware of the past.
Tom spent a block on vehicle defense, but this wasn’t about shooting in or out of cars. Rather, that many people spend a lot of time in and around cars, in and around parking lots, in and around the street. What sorts of things can be done to help manage those situations – and it has nothing to do with shooting. How to park, where to park, and simple things like… lock your doors, keep your windows up.
A block then on low-light techniques. This was especially interesting because Tom didn’t just list off techniques, but he provided history and context for technique evolution. One point on techniques many don’t consider is how technology and technique went hand-in-hand. For example, the FBI technique is as it is because the flashlight technology at the time was the old Ray-O-Vac flashlights that had lots of spill and not a lot of power. Second generation techniques like Harries and Chapman/Ayoob were because of the Mag-Lite style. History and context matter.
Later in the afternoon we went to the range. Tom loves cold shooting, so we started with the FBI qual (2019 edition). Tom made it slightly more difficult, since we were using the RMTS-Q target, we scored by the rings (vs. the “hit in the bottle or not” scoring the FBI uses). Oh yeah… the score was recorded. I shot a 95.6%.
After that, we did some work with barriers and barricades. Then some work with low light. The cool part of this was being indoors, light-levels and light direction were easily manipulated. For example, we could simulate “darkness” as it might be in an urban environment (which isn’t pitch black), or simulate as if headlights were behind us.
Packed out and a number of us went out for supper. There is good Mexican food to be found in Oklahoma!
At the end of TD1, Tom told us to leave off our normal EDC and come to class wearing our revolvers. Yes, plural.
We started in the classroom, talking about revolvers. Advantages, disadvantages, and other realities of the revolver. It was evident Tom has a deep experience with revolvers and does enjoy them. But Tom also asserts they aren’t the best for self-defense – technology has evolved. I may be getting the exact words wrong, but two quotes from Tom:
Nostalgia is great, until someone is trying to kill you.
And something like: “Why do you take a revolver course? To learn why you shouldn’t carry a revolver.”
This caused a lot of “rustled jimmies” on the Internets, which I’ll talk to later.
On the range we worked revolver skills. Shooting, trigger manipulation, reloading techniques. It culminated in shooting a revolver qualification for score. We had 3 perfect scores on the qual: Michael Labonte, Lee Weems, and myself. That resulted in a 20-round shootoff. Michael had a well-deserved win.
That evening, I don’t know what everyone else did, but I got a bit of 80’s/90’s hair metal nostalgia. John Correia of Active Self Protection met the lead singer of the band Warrant, Robert Mason, on a flight home a few weeks prior. They kept in touch, and by chance Warrant was playing at a casino not too far from Shawnee. So John, myself, Ka, Chuck Haggard, Spencer Keepers, and John’s friend Mason went to the show, met with Robert after the show, had a great evening (the car-conversations were gold).
Don’t expect that perk in future runs of the class. 😉
TD3 started in the classroom, but only as a formality. Straight to the range we went.
And what did we start with?
Rangemaster Bullseye. Cold. For score. Nothing like 25 yard timed group shooting on a B-8 target to wake you up in the morning.
After that, the Super Test. Scored, but I’m not sure it was part of the class aggregate.
And no Rangemaster event would be complete without a running of the Casino Drill! We actually ran it a number of times, each run a different variation: 7-7-7, 6-7-8, reverse order, odds-evens. Then of course, we ran it for score (part of aggregate). I dropped a number of shots on 6 and it made for an embarrassing score.
After that, we ran the new Rangemaster Master Instructor qual. It’s a typical Rangemaster qual, just the toughest. I’ve got a number of RM quals, such a his old Level 5, the regular Instructor qual, now this. You can see they are all similar (the shooting problems we face don’t change, but our skill level and ability to address those problems can change), just get progressively more difficult. I shot a 91.5%, which passes, but I’m far from happy with it. This is the other score that went onto your certificate.
The afternoon was spent on candidate drills. Each candidate had to come to class prepared with a drill: could be their own invention, could be someone else’s. Doesn’t matter, just have a drill that takes about 5-15 rounds, can be run with 5-10 people in a single string (no individual runs, not enough time), and you must bring the targets (plus anything else you might need like a whistle, stopwatch, timer, etc.). Tom calls who is up. You explain your drill: background, philosophy, how we could use it in our own classes or training, the COF itself. Then you run the line and administer the drill. If after shooting there’s any post, e.g. scoring, summary discussion. And then onto the next person. With 18 candidates, this took all afternoon, but it was a ton of fun to do, shoot, and I picked up a few cool things to add to my personal drills list.
Before we left the range we had a special treat. I’m not sure if this is a normal part of class or just a lucky extra because Chuck Haggard was in class. But Chuck pulled out some ballistics gel and ran a bunch of ammo through it. He put up 4-layer denim and shot various 9mm loads like Gold Dot, HSTs, Critical Duty, some .38 loads, etc. While it’s not a huge data set, it was fairly consistent with other data I’ve seen. It continues to affirm my choice of Speer Gold Dot 9mm 124 grain +P (Chuck’s choice too). I also have started to use Federal Gold Medal Match .38 Special 148 grain wadcutters for a snub load, and seeing the ballistic gel performance in person continues to affirm that for the sub-optimal .38, this remains probably your best bet (and it’s “low recoil” too). (Note to self: probably should have used it during the qual…)
We wrapped up in the classroom with certificates (everyone passed, which should be expected at this level), and Ed Monk of Last Resort Firearms Training took Top Shot, with Lee Weems coming in first loser (it’s a joke, Lee and I rib each other a lot; but he did shoot consistently well all weekend).
I don’t know how to adequately convey the gravity of training with Tom Givens. Tom is one of the few remaining that bridges between the old guard (i.e. Jeff Cooper was his mentor) and the modern world. But he isn’t stuck in Cooper’s world; he grows, he learns, he’s still a student. He’s forgotten more than most people know. And he can still outshoot most of us too. The depth and breadth of his knowledge is impossible to capture here – you just need to train with him. And like it or not, Tom’s not a spring chicken; he won’t be doing this forever, and you will kick yourself if Tom stops teaching and you didn’t take the opportunity to train with him. I have 126 hours of formal training under Tom (out of my now 795 total firearms training hours), and I value every one of them.
In particular, the Master course felt like the right capstone to his Instructor-level training curriculum. It covered topics that aren’t fundamental, but are important in being a well-rounded and deeply-knowledged instructor. It also has the highest and toughest requirements of any single course, and consider because of the two-prerequisites it means you’ve had to pass 1 written test, 6 shooting qualifications, and a number of other qualifications, contests, and performance evaluations. You have to be able to perform, in front of others, and know your stuff. Furthermore, all of those are performed over time… years, for most people. That means you just can’t have a hot weekend, you must have and maintain that skill over a long period of time. And remember Tom does NOT give out these certificates: they are truly earned (there’s a decent wash-out rate in the first class; and I’d expect by the time you get to Master level you ought to be capable, competent, and serious enough there’s no washing out – but it’s still totally possible).
This certification has meaning. I don’t think there’s any other certification in this industry (and even in other industries) have have such rigor, such demand of knowledge and performance over time.
That out of the way…
Were there hiccups? Yup. It was the first time the course was offered so there were some kinks. But Tom was aware, and in fact one of the last thing he asked the class was for feedback on the class itself. We had honest and candid comments, and Tom took them all. Nothing too bad, just kinks worth ironing out. I’ll be curious to see how the future iterations of this class adjust and improve.
So… revolver day turned into a little fun on The Internets.
As I wrote elsewhere, I think everyone got caught up in the Internet of it all.
The point was mainly this:
Today there’s still the pervasive notion that revolvers don’t break, don’t malfunction, are more reliable and easier to operate (and maintain) than semi-autos.
That is patently false. It’s a myth.
Witness our class. 18 “hobbyists”, a low round count day (no more than 300 rounds), and numerous problems. And not just our class, but in Tom’s multi-decade experience. Yes, our class may have been above average, but the point remains: revolvers aren’t this infallible thing, no matter what the guy behind the gun store counter tells you.
And that was the point of it all.
Actually, it is a little more than that.
People wanted to know what revolvers they were, if they had been gunsmithed (either backroom or gamered or whatever), what sort of ammo (in fact, most people are chalking up our day to being an ammo problem and not a well-maintained revolver problem), whatever sorts of information they could find to blow off the problems as isolated to our case and thus an anomaly to be discarded.
Folks: it doesn’t matter.
It’s key to note that when a revolver malfunctions – because the gun itself, because ammo, because simple bad luck – most likely the only corrective solution is going to involve a bench, tools, and maybe a gunsmith. Or, drawing your backup revolver. That fixing the problem is going to take more time and trouble than you will have in the middle of a gunfight. Even normal reloading is a slow endeavor. This is why “in the old west” they carried more than one gun: gun fails or runs dry, you drop it and draw your next gun. That “New York reload” is the most reliable remedial action one can take.
Technology advances. It’s why we don’t use telegraphs but now have iPhones. It’s why we don’t use horseback but drive Teslas. Indoor plumbing. Air conditioning. We have things that make our lives better. And modern semi-autos on the whole are more reliable, have greater capacity, and malfunctions are often able to be remedied in a fight and not be majorly costly.
Does this mean revolvers can’t work? No. Does this mean semi-autos can’t fail? No. None of that. In fact, if you really look at what people like John, Darryl, and most of all Tom are saying, they’re pretty much on the same page. Again… people just wanted to get caught up in the Internet of it all. Lots of conclusion jumping. Lots of assumptions and poo-pooing. Few, if any, checking with one of the 20 people actually in attendance at the event to get first-hand information (at least when the initial reactions were posted). And while people might want to dismiss the observations of 19 of the attendees, ultimately the main point was really one that Tom himself was making. And we all know Tom Givens knows nothing about revolvers…
I must admit, it’s not how I wanted to end my 2019 work.
In 2019 I chalked up 149 hours of formal training in combatives, medical, and firearms from a host of top-flight instructors. It was probably my best year of training in terms of material studied and progression of skill. Two notable classes were Lee Weems’ Deliberate Speed Pistol, and Gabe White’s Pistol Shooting Solutions courses. Those were transformative, and really broke me through some long-standing plateaus in my skill, mindset, and thinking towards my shooting. If not for Lee’s class, I don’t think I would have learned my Light Pin in Gabe’s class.
I went into the Master course expecting to continue on that upward trend, but instead I regressed.
It’s pretty simple.
I became results-oriented.
Tom’s one of the few people who can induce a high level of nervousness in me. I have a deep respect for Tom, and any time I shoot poorly, I feel I’m letting him down. Plus, being the first Master Instructor class, the desire to pass, the desire to not be the dude that failed out of the first class… then couple seeing the quals and all that we were going to do, the people I was going to be doing it in front of – people I respect deeply, new people who would be forming first opinions of me – well… it all added up to be being too focused on the results and not just on the process (and letting the results come).
But I should also have expected it. While I’ve been trying to change to being process-focused in my shooting, it really took Gabe’s class just a month prior to this to give me the breakthrough to apply it how I needed to apply it. There’s no way for that to have become myelinated in such a short period of time. So… I fell back on what I was, what was myelinated.
It was still good enough to pass, but I can see other embarrassing things throughout the weekend. John Correia has a great 10-round assessment drill, and I dropped the 2 head shots on it? I did my worst Casino run ever. I’d have 1 shot on a qual that was “out of bounds” and lose a bunch of points (the scoring of Tom’s drills are brutal on dropped shots, and rightly so). All because my head was where it shouldn’t have been.
But… it was a good learning point, and I know long-term I’m going to be thankful things went as they did. I told me where I really was, and what I need to do in my training going forward. I’ve already been formulating my plan to work on stuff.
That all said tho? Cleaning the revolver qual and going into a shootoff with Lee Weems and Michael Labonte will forever be a cool moment in my book. Two great guys, two great shooters. It was the highlight of my weekend.
All the other non-shooty things were cool too. It was great to see Tom. It was great to see my “extended Rangemaster family”, and extend it more by meeting a bunch of new people (some brand new, some known from the Internets and seeing in person the first time). Great food. A fun off-event seeing Warrant. And Tim Reedy’s never-ending bad jokes. 🙂
All in all… a good weekend. I’m fortunate to have been a part of it.
Gabe White is an accomplished shooter. You should check out his resumé so you can understand his skill and where he’s coming from. An aspect worth highlighting is Gabe’s a USPSA Master-class shooter – shooting his normal carry gear, from concealment. So basically, he’s up against other people and a classification system that rewards “gaming”, and he’s handicapping himself by his choice of gear and approach. Yet, he’s still able to play at an extremely high level.
Why would he do this?
Gabe’s interest is more in the “tactical” and self-defense world than gaming, but he finds gaming a reasonable place for one to put skills into practice, especially under pressure. As well, the gaming world is very interested in technical skill. High-levels of skill generally lead to better performance and chances of winning the game – so why shouldn’t there be such similar focus on technical skill in the tactical/self-defense world? Wouldn’t better performance in that area be more important?
Pistol Shooting Solutions is Gabe’s effort “to help established defensive handgun practitioners realize the next steps in their journey toward technical excellence to go along with the mindset, awareness, and tactics that form the foundation of self-defense with a handgun.”
Gabe’s website provides information about the class and prerequisites. It’s important to note this is NOT a beginner class. For example, “You should be able to hit a 6″x 6″ target on demand at 10 yards”. There’s a lot more that goes into it as well, and I’d argue even a bit beyond what’s printed on the website. Gabe does assume you have not just a fair level of skill, but also knowledge about the problems and realities of defensive pistolcraft. For example, Gabe referred to the concepts of “ability, opportunity, and jeopardy” and “the doctrine of competing harms” – it’s not critical you know these concepts to get something from the class, but it’s evident Gabe (reasonably) assumes a particular level of knowledge in his audience. Making this assumption, requiring this of his students/audience, allows him to speak at a particular level and move the class pace and concepts in the direction they need to go.
Class was held at my home range, KR Training, hosted by Karl Rehn. There were 14 students, all were from the KR Training instructor cadre or KR Training Challenge Coin holders – that means a high level of skill across the entire student body (and no “that guy”). This sort of environment is weird. You’re friends with all these people, so it’s a very supportive environment. It’s also one that leads to being more challenging and more pressure-filled because you know these people will push you, and you also want to perform at your best in front of them. But it’s also forgiving because these people know you – and they’re like you – because they too have similar successes and failures. When you blow a run, they’re not going to think you suck – they’re going to support you and help you get better. This makes for a great learning environment.
Class was LONG. Each day ran from 8:00 AM to 6:30 PM – yup, two 10+ hour days. There are breaks, but the class is reasonably fast paced and keeps moving. I wouldn’t say it’s a highly physical class, but for sure some level of fitness helps. One interesting note is I didn’t get much sleep Saturday night. I woke up after just a few hours of sleep, I guess because I was somewhat amped from Day 1 and excited about Day 2. What’s more interesting was chatting with a number of my classmates Sunday morning and they too had abnormally less sleep. Take it for what you will.
My equipment was my normal carry gear, plus a few things for the range:
S&W M&P9 M2.0 4″ Compact
Always starting with a 15-round mag, but then reloads to my old “1.0” 17-round mags.
Only mods: Apex Tactical DCAEK (but stock trigger), Dawson Precision sights (serrated black Charger rear 0.125″ notch; red fiber front 0.100″ post).
Dark Star Gear Orion, with Dark Wing and clip. Worn AIWB.
My old Comp-Tac dual mag pouch (then 2 more mags in my left cargo pant pocket)
Federal American Eagle Syntech 9mm 124 grain (shot shy of 1000 rounds).
My Lone Star Medics prototype fanny pack IFAK.
No, I did not shoot the Sig P365 (more on that later).
PSS is a highly-focused class. It’s about improvement of technical skill. Gabe structures things quite methodically. Class started in the classroom with Gabe’s safety lecture, and him discussing his background and philosophy. All good things to help establish the class, where he’s coming from, and where he intends to take us. After a couple hours inside, we headed to the range with a warm-up so Gabe could assess the student body, especially for gun handling and safety. Then a series of blocks were run to focus on specific skills.
Then we started to get into the meat of things.
When Gabe’s class is talked about, it’s often discussed in terms of the Technical Skills Tests and the resulting Pin awards. The class is so much more than that, but the tests and chance of earning a pin provide both structure and incentive to the class and students. Each “pin block” went something like:
Discussion of concepts, including Gabe demoing.
Live work, pushing yourself to where you’d like to be.
Live work, keeping it in the realm of your current capability (how you would shoot the test).
2 runs of the test for time but not score.
2 runs of the test for time and score.
A steel head-to-head shoot-off.
We worked up to 2 tests the first day (Bill Drill, Failure to Stop), with the other two drills (Immediate Incapacitation, Split Bill Drill) the second day.
While the work-up to the test was a large part of things, the head-to-head shootoffs were cool. Gabe would set up a short steel course with person on the left shooting one thing and person on the right shooting another. For example, left had a steel target 10′ away and started from concealment, with right having a steel 20 yards away starting from low ready. The go-signal was left-person starting their draw, and right-person having to react. Two different tasks, but of about similar difficulty. The course of fire was related to the testing block we just completed, and became more challenging as the class progressed.
Day 2 started at 8:00 AM sharp on the range (I deeply appreciate his on-time starts), with a quick warm-up and into material. Material continued with a logical progression, eventually discussing shooting on the move. Gabe took a track that isn’t often seen: moving and shooting at speed. It wasn’t the typical gaming “slow and smooth duck walk”, nor was it necessarily the “move OR shoot” approach. You can get an idea of how this worked by watching Lucky Gunner’s video review of the class (which is also a great overview and review of the class). This eventually progressed to the use of barriers, cover, and concealment, touching on the subject in facets and depth I’ve not experienced before. Gabe’s choice to keep the class fairly narrowly focused allowed him to go into great depth (and I suspect there’s even more going on in Gabe’s mind that just can’t fit into 21 hours of class).
Class wrapped up in a usual way, returning to the classroom for thank yous, certificates, awards, and pictures.
My Assessment of Class
In a word: transformative.
When I first heard about the class and the shooting tests, I took at look at them, appreciating the times and breakdown by shot and pin-level – I like numbers and data. I knew my skills were in the Dark Pin realm, but I also knew I had a key issue: my drawstroke. It’s two parts. First, getting out of the holster is a new issue due to carrying AIWB. It’s establishment of grip, and it’s also just that last bit of hesitation because screwing up (e.g. finger enters the trigger-guard too soon) leads to disaster. So while I can clear the garment and make contact quickly, I’m still finding my best grip and then ensuring it’s secure with no screw-ups. That winds up costing a bit of time. Second, getting the gun out, on target, and being able to accept the sight picture and break the shot – it may not be textbook perfect, but is it good enough for the current context? I still hesitate slightly from wanting “just that extra bit of on-target confirmation”. As a result, my draw-to-first-shot is slower than it could be. When I would push myself, I would wind up being too tense, or would just flub things.
Another issue is… 7 yards. 7 yards is this crazy, magical distance (at least for me). At 3 yards, things are close and sloppy tends to work out. 10 yards is where things start to feel far away. Even 5 yards still feels close and you can often get away with things. But 7… it feels close, but if you shoot it like 3 yards you’ll blow it, and if you shoot it like 10 yards you take too long. It’s far yet close, close yet far. So it’s a great distance to work at, because it messes with my head. Shoot aggressively like at 3, but shoot carefully like at 10, 15, 25.
My biggest issue (or rather, the one this class had the biggest impact upon) is how I’ve long been focused on the outcome. “I need to pass this test”. “Don’t screw this up.” “Did I hit it?” or any manner of focus on the result I need to generate. And what happens? Sometimes I generate it, sometimes I do not. If I’m working well within my capacity, I usually achieve the result. But when I have to push to or get pushed to the edges, when I have to work under high-pressure, focusing (worrying?) so much about the outcome gets in the way of doing what needs to be done right now – I focus where I need to be, not on what I need to do!
I realized this some time ago and have been working on it, especially in my shooting. Every time I’m here in the now and focused on what I’m doing right now at this moment, things go well. Focus on that draw, eyes glued to the front sight, and just do what needs to be done. Don’t worry about the holes right now while shooting, because they will be there when I’m done; stay focused on the work at hand this moment, trust the process and yourself, and the results will be there. After the gun’s back in the holster and things are safe/clear, THEN I can consider the result. And what’s great is if I shut up and trusted myself to do my part, then the result happens. It’s magical. 😉
There are things Gabe did in class that helped me address all of these things.
The 7 yards is easy: all tests are at 7 yards. How to get better at X? Generally speaking, do (more of) X.
The other issues tho… it’s things Gabe said, and how he did things. He speaks with great confidence, almost to an inspiring level. He spoke of being process focused, and something about his talk, his approach, made something click in my head. Maybe it just drove me harder to focus on the process, I don’t know for sure. But something Gabe said/did clicked and helped me break through.
Furthermore, the structure of the shooting drills helped. Length, detailed explanation of the drill and concepts within it. Demonstration of the drill, including commentary on his own performance. Then we would shoot dry drills, including a few rather unorthodox ones of his own creation, that would isolate a relevant aspect of the skill to be focused on. Next we’d perform live at a level of “what we want to perform like”. This is shooting beyond our bounds, out of reach, a 110% type of thing. This is great because you might find you can actually perform faster than you think, you just needed permission to go faster. Then you dial it back to what you can perform, then you perform. This approach is somewhat novel amongst classes I’ve taken. Typically you get a drill/skill, you shoot it “as is” a few times, then move to the next thing. But here, it’s 1 “thing to shoot” and shot in a manner to help your performance of that thing. It helps you find it, it helps you dial it in under a watchful eye. But note: you yourself need to have some level of self-awareness and ability to self-correct to get the most out of the class (Gabe can’t watch every run you do).
What is the typical response/solution to shooting in a manner that’s a bit beyond your skill? “Slow down”. But that’s not Gabe’s response. Gabe basically wants you to shoot at the same speed, but address whatever is causing your problem. This is not a beginner-level solution to problems, but it sure is a way to be able to do things faster. I’ve heard this before, but again, something about how Gabe presented it. So instead of me backing off when the wheels fell off, I kept the pedal down and worked to address the wheels.
Straight up? Lee Weems’ Deliberate Speed Pistol class contributed here too. I found myself applying Lee’s deliberate techniques, which would help me keep a locked-in focus on the front sight. That kept me “in the moment” and focused on the process. Watching that front sight, being able to call my shots (just about every shot I “pulled” I knew it the moment it happened).
When I put it all together – it’s what enabled me to earn a Light Pin.
A Light Pin is: “An early stage of excellence in core technical skills of drawing and shooting”. I’ve been thinking about how to convey the significance of the pin to those who may not have the frame of reference, and I’m failing to find a way (open to suggestions!). Just know that this is well-respected amongst my peers, and is a big accomplishment.
One other quick comment – I think standards is the wrong word to describe these. To me, the term ‘standards’ refers to an obligated level of performance, and if you can’t do it all the time, then you are wrong. These are intended to be difficult goals to reach for. I specifically set the Turbo threshold to be difficult enough that almost no one would be able to easily walk through them at 100% without effort. I certainly can’t.
I feel like I broke through a plateau in my shooting skill. I was made aware of my performance, especially where my performance is inefficient, sub-optimal, and needs work. I also was made aware that I’m much better than I give myself credit for.
The last part feels funny for me to say. What it is is trusting myself.
I’m so focused on defensive shooting (vs. gaming). I care immensely about issues like unacceptable hits. As a result, it causes me to slow down, to confirm and confirm again. This is all good and I believe a right mentality to hold. But it also holds me back, and potentially that hold back could be costly. It’s evident I have some degree of unconscious-competence in this area, and I have to allow myself to operate in that way instead of inserting (potentially unnecessary) conscious thought into a time-critical event and risking problems and failure. When I stay “in the moment” focusing on the task at hand, everything about that moment is clearer. And since we know following this process does in fact lead to desired outcome, just… follow the process.
So it’s weird to say “trust myself”, it’s not really the right words. But there were things shown and behaviors reinforced by Gabe’s class that were positive and right.
Taking some time off because my hands need to heal up. But it’s giving me time to reflect, review class notes, and other useful things.
I see where I need to work. I want to solidify Light Pin performance. I have work on my drawstroke and “draw to first shot” to deal with. Continuing to be focused in the now.
Long term, I’m presently a B-class Production shooter in USPSA. A Light Pin can be thought of as a solid A-class performance (based off data from our book Strategies and Standards for Defensive Handgun Training). I’ve been wanting to get to A-class, because I feel that’s a pretty good level for someone that likes to shoot well but isn’t deeply interested in playing the game itself. Having broken that plateau, I feel this may be attainable now.
Remember my Sig P365 fail saga? Early on in evaluating the P365, I did think that if it passed muster and was in fact to be my daily carry, I ought to take Gabe’s class with it. I knew that was kinda crazy to do, but “train like you fight” and all that. Well, after the P365 went to crap, there was no way I was going to bother taking Gabe’s class. The replacement P365 ran 500 rounds with zero hiccups, but it needs needs to prove itself fully. Will I take Gabe’s class with a P365? Not currently in the cards, but I think when I get back to working with the P365 that I will shoot Gabe’s tests and see what I can do. Getting at least a Dark Pin level of performance with the P365 would be a nice start.
The person-on-person shoot-offs were great. Tons of pressure, immense challenge, lots of shit-talking and fun amongst friends, a bunch of laughter and high-fives. Just great stuff. It provides a different dimension to the class, contributing to the lessons but also providing a change up. What’s great is I believe everyone won some and lost some (and I believe everyone did earn a patch). A great set of classmates to shoot against – we sharpen each other.
One thing I personally liked with the steel shoot-offs was the chance to experiment more. For example, on the running drill there are a number of ways you could approach the problem. The structure of the shoot-offs allowed me to try one approach, then another, go back to the first, try it again, try it one side, try it the other side, as many times as I was able to within the time allotted for the drill. Discussing this with fellow KRT Instructor Ed on the drive home, we agreed that such structure allowing you permission to explore was quite meaningful.
It was great watching Gabe demo. He would demonstrate every skill, and demonstrate it as he wanted us to perform it. In doing so, he “failed” often – his words. Now many of us would look at a Gabe White failure run and esteem to fail so well. 🙂 But Gabe knows his level and he felt this weekend’s shooting wasn’t representative of his best. But this shows a number of important things.
Instructors should not be afraid to demo in front of their students, but only if they can actually do what needs to be demoed in the first place. Failure doesn’t mean you suck – it means you’re human.
Getting up to demo, just like public speaking, takes a lot of guts. It’s pressure, and being able to perform under pressure is important. The more you subject yourself to performing under pressure, the better you will become at it.
Gabe talked about a 25% performance tax. At KR Training we tell our Defensive Pistol Skill 1 students a lesson from Paul Ford that when the flag flies you’ll perform at about 70% of your worst day on the range. Gabe can shoot really well – then under pressure and other environmental factors, he didn’t perform to HIS level, but he still performed at a very high level.
This is why it’s so important to train well above levels of minimum competency, so when the time comes and your skills will degrade, that degraded level is still high enough to get the job done.
Class dynamics were good. Gabe has spent time not only on his curriculum, but also how to run the class. I spoke with him about some classroom management techniques he used, and it’s evident he’s put a lot into managing issues of a traveling trainer (ranges will vary in what they provide), keeping the class smooth, efficient, on time.
I will restate the classes are very long. I do wonder if the classes might be too long. People were pretty spent by early-afternoon on the 2nd day, and once the last test was completed a number of people flat out stopped shooting – myself included. Heck, I barely made it through the fourth test (Split Bill Drill), intentionally dialing it back because my hands just couldn’t take it any more. My hands were raw, blistered, and got to a point of major tenderness in my right palm (as if bruised). Shooting nearly 1000 rounds with a grippy-gun, a hard-clamp grip, aggressively driving a gun on every string of fire for 2 days – it takes a toll. I didn’t want to stop shooting, but I had to stop early. As well, I – and I know others – were just so spent towards the end of class that it was difficult to focus on his instructional block about cover/concealment and movement tactics. It was extremely informative, but I just had a hard time staying focused on his lecture and I know I didn’t register as much as I would have liked simply due to exhaustion. My feet ached, my hands were beat-up, my brain was drained, it was hot, sweaty, tired – just not a conducive environment to learn in.
Plus, I wanted to go out to dinner with Gabe one evening, but I just couldn’t. Having to wake up at 4 AM, not getting home until maybe 8-8:30 PM (then shower, supper, maybe a smidge of family time), and repeat – there was just no way (especially since I am making fixing my sleep issues a priority, even if I have to miss out on stuff). Granted, we’re not attending class for social hour, but I know I and often other intermediate/advanced students like to go out to supper with a visiting trainer – few were able to go just due to schedule.
I guess it just means I have to take the class again. 🙂 Not just because a Turbo pin would be cool, but there is so much material it would be great to hear it all again.
And yes, you should portion your training budget to train with Gabe. I cannot recommend him enough.
“Be mentally composed and focus on completing the task at hand.” – Gabe White
Am I able to do what needs to be done? To achieve the thing I wish to achieve?
I can’t answer that for you.
And I’m not sure anyone really can provide a single concrete answer.
For me in my world – where I like to lift weights – what is “strong enough”? There are strength standards. And more thoughts. And other thoughts. And if you search around, you’ll find even more. But look at their bias. Do they consider sex/gender (because that matters)? Do they consider age? Do they consider capabilities (e.g., someone with one arm)?
It’s good to have some indications like these, because they help us understand what is at least possible. To go from zero to world records, that gives us the continuum of what’s possible in the realm of human capability. But we all know that world records are outliers, people with a particular gift to go along with work ethic and time invested. So still, along that continuum, where can we go?
I know a cop who is a large mammal – almost gorilla-like strength. His physical strength was a huge asset in his job. But then, he couldn’t run a foot pursuit worth a damn. He worked to be able to run well, but lost so much strength. Today he’s found a medium between the two. So do these standards consider context? do they consider situation and need?
My chief profession is a software developer. As an iOS developer, my world is narrow in a sense, but one can go quite deep within it. I see web developers, and the vast choice of technologies and approach one can take is staggering. How many languages, how many platforms, how deep, how broad – what makes one a top developer?
Or how about another part of my world, with defensive pistolcraft. Karl and I may have spoken and written about “Top 10 Drills”, but when you think about it each one of those is a particular standard. And there are so many more. What makes this one a better standard? Which one really qualifies you as “good enough”?
I was teaching this past weekend, and this topic came up. What is “good enough”? What is “sufficient”? It doesn’t really matter the context in life, it’s a general topic that applies to anything.
And all I could think of as a good and acceptable rule?
I’ve been giving the Sig Sauer P365 a trial. You can read and see about my exploration on my Instagram feed. There’s my first thought, my first live fire session, second live fire session (including a little fun). But what was more telling? I opted to shoot it exclusively during the 2019 Rangemaster Instructor Reunion and Conference. That’s no small potatoes. You know you’re going to be shooting tough courses. You know you’ll be shooting and the eyes of a few dozen top instructors will be watching you (because you will shoot The Casino Drill solo in front of everyone). And there’s Tom Givens – a man who commands the highest respect, and you don’t want to let him down. There’s a lot of pressure to perform well – so is it really the right place to shoot a small gun? an untested gun?
I can’t think of a better place!
I am considering this gun for personal protection. I am wanting to bet my life on it. If it – and I with it – cannot perform in high pressure situations on demand? Then it’s no good.
I have been shooting that P365 exclusively for a good while. I have been doing daily dry fire, and then a few live-fire sessions. I had about 800 rounds through the gun before the Reunion, and total around 1200 after. Frankly, that’s more rounds than many people shoot in a year, and some guns/people see in a lifetime. That weekend I shot with a lot of people of high skill, and you can see how I performed – and with the P365.
What I found interesting was when on Sunday morning everyone switched to their small gun, I saw that I continued to shoot about the same but I watched many around me degrade in their shooting skill. The take-away?
Shooting with small guns is hard.
Even for highly-skilled people, it’s harder to shoot a small gun than a big gun. (this is not new news: see the article Karl Rehn wrote back in 2012 on this very topic)
I see it time and time again. People come to class with a big gun and a fancy rig to carry it in. I ask them if that’s what they normally carry and the answer is no, they carry a tiny gun in a pocket holster. The follow-up question is why they aren’t shooting the class with the gun they carry. And there’s lots of reasons, some I might accept and most I won’t. Whatever the specific reason is, if you peel back the layers it often comes down to a simple thing:
they know their small gun is hard to shoot
they don’t want to look stupid or incompetent in class struggling to shoot the small, difficult gun
I get it. My ego wasn’t happy with how the Reunion weekend went. I felt a little ego-bruised because there were a number of people I respect seeing me shoot for the first time… and this was to be their impression of me and my skills. And here I am, shooting at my home range, as the Senior Assistant Instructor of KR Training, just published the “Strategies and Standards for Defensive Handgun Training” book, all this ego investment.
So trust me – I get it.
And when the weekend and gun and my shooting didn’t go as great as my ego wanted it to? Oh yeah, I felt it.
I get it. I really do.
But here’s the thing.
What I got out of the weekend (in terms of the gun and my shooting it) was PRECISELY what I wanted to get out of the endeavor. I wanted to see if it would perform, and how I would perform with it. And I got that.
I feel the gun needs a little more time before I can feel the hardware is as flawless as a human-created machine can get; and that I can trust it
I learned I have to put in a LOT of dedicated time with it (more than I anticipated), and that I cannot (yet) shoot it to the same level as my full-size gun.
But I also got that when I put in the time, the payoff is good.
Frankly, all of the time and investment I made in shooting the P365, including shooting it during the Reunion, gave me more knowledge, more skill, more ability, and more confidence in not just the hardware, but me. I cannot stress the importance of knowing your equipment – and knowing yourself, not just your capabilities but your limits too. If an instructor is going to embarrass you, belittle you, or laugh at you because you can’t shoot – they’re not an instructor, they’re a jerk. The fact you are coming to class is acknowledgement you don’t know and you wish to learn, that you admit your shortcomings and want to improve. If anyone’s going to make you feel bad about that, they can fuck right off.
This is a clue for you folks that carry a small gun but rarely practice with it. Or that come to class with a bigger gun to “game” the class.
To what are you entrusting your life?
Is your ego more important to preserve than your life?
Set your ego aside. If you’re going to entrust your life to something, make sure you are skilled and confident in that something.