Guns

on capacity

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

One thing I love about Tom Givens is his incredible depth of knowledge. His expertise in matters of personal safety and firearms is unparalleled. Because of this, he’s able to get you thinking about things in different ways.

For example, in the recent Instructor Certification course I took with him, Tom discussed “high-capacity” magazines in guns.

When people hear “high-capacity magazines” (or more commonly, “high-capacity assault clips” *sigh*), they think about how it gives you the ability to shoot more. According to Tom, that’s not what they are for. And when you think about it, that really isn’t what they provide. They don’t really enable you to “shoot more” because there are many other ways to accomplish “shoot more”.

But what capacity allows you to do that really nothing else allows?

To reload less.

Practical

Let’s look at the practical side of it. Credit to Tom Givens for presenting this logic.

A “split” is the time between shots. So if someone is shooting 0.20 second splits, that means there was 0.20 seconds of time between the end of the first shot and the beginning of the second. So you can think of it that if someone shoots 0.20 second splits, they are capable of firing 2 shots in 0.20 seconds, if you will.

I’m going to simplify the math here, because it makes discussion easier. But the point still gets across.

If someone then has 5 rounds, which is typical of many revolvers, that means the shooter could empty the revolver in 1 second.

That’s not very long, is it?

10 rounds? 2 seconds.

15 rounds? 3 seconds.

According to data from self-defense gunfights (private citizens, FBI, DEA), the typical gunfight lasts 3 seconds.

So let that sink in.

If the fight is only going to last 3 seconds, after 5 rounds you’re out of the fight — but the fight is still going on. Of course, that’s if your fight is a typical one; would really suck if your fight was atypical and went longer.

If you’ve now lost use of a very important tool, do you think you have gained advantage or lost advantage? What are you going to do to make up that advantage? because I’m sure you don’t want to lose the fight (and possibly your life).

Oh sure, you could reload, but even the fastest reload takes time. And it doesn’t matter the technique, be it a speed reload or drawing a backup, it still eats precious time.

So if you don’t have to reload? All the better. It can keep you in the fight longer, which hopefully will be long enough to end the fight and you to prevail.

Of course, this is then argument against those small guns, those low-capcacity guns. Yes, sometimes we have to carry them. But if you have a choice, take the Glock 17 over the Kahr PM9.

Political

I wish I didn’t have to write about the political nature of this, but some people only view “high-capacity assault clips” as a way to inflict more death and violence upon the innocent children of the world.

If that were the case, why would police want guns that can hold lots of ammo?

Why would police have moved away from 6-shot revolvers to 17-shot Glocks?

Why do you think police would want more ammo?

Of course, because they might be caught in a prolonged gun battle. But also because having to reload less allows them to end attacks quickly.

Why would this be any different for private citizens?

Or for gun-banning politicians and their well-armed bodyguards…..

Here’s the rub. If you look at most mass shooting incidents, they are not 3-second affairs. The killer has many guns, and a lot of time. They are slow, methodical, often speak to their victims before shooting them. They have all the time in the world to reek their mayhem and destruction upon the world. Lowering capacity will not stop or dissuade them in any regard.

So why do it?

We don’t consider it rational in any other arena to undergo activities that have no demonstrable ability to achieve desired goals, so why is it considered acceptable to implement ineffective solutions in this arena? And if you tell me “if it saves just one life, then it’s worth it”, I can present to you now 60 students of Tom Givens’ that had their lives saved because they had their gun. So there’s 60 lives, and so by your logic it’s 60-times worth it to have guns and concealed carry.

The only thing restricting capacity does is harm innocent law-abiding citizens. Are these the people you wish to abridge? Well, some might argue that yes, that’s precisely who “gun control advocates” want to injure.

But I say this… if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander — and all of society. So, police should also be subject to the same restrictions. Our military should be subject to the same restrictions. Your bodyguards should be subject to the same restrictions. If you are unwilling to enact the restrictions for them, why is that? And why should this class of citizens be more privileged? If we don’t like the 1% having all the privilege, why are you giving up the power to them?

Why is it OK for them to be protected, but it’s not OK for me and my children to be protected by the same measure and standard? Why are we considered less, and why are you advocating for us to be treated as lessers?

Please… someone that wishes to enact such restrictions. Please, answer my questions and convince me of your stance. Convince me what you say is right, just, true, and factually and rationally the right choice. Please show me the data and convince me that capacity restrictions will achieve your desired goals of “won’t someone think of the children”. Please. I seek truth and am willing to change my mind if the right and logical facts are presented to me — it’s how I became a gun-owner in the first place, because until about 5 years ago I wasn’t. But that’s why I changed my mind in the first place – because I finally stopped and listened to reason, facts, and logic — not emotion, not misconceptions and ignorance.

And when you’re done trying to convince me… please look my children in the eye and tell them the same.

What can we learn – 3rd party intervention

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

TXGunGeek raises a good point about getting involved:

The general manager of a local car dealership was shot during an incident at a San Antonio gentlemen’s club early Monday morning.

KENS 5 in San Antonio reports the victim of the shooting was Mike Vivaldi, who heads up Team Ford of Navasota.

According to WOAI Radio, the shooting happened around 2:00 a.m. Monday at the Palace Men’s Club on Northeast Loop 410.

Police believe Vivaldi was attempting to break up a fight in the truck in the parking lot between a man and a woman when a gun was pulled by the man. Vivaldi was reportedly shot twice in the mid-section.

The truck drove away from the scene, both the shooter and the woman reportedly inside.

Vivaldi was hospitalized at the San Antonio Military Medical Center, originally in critical condition, though reports out of San Antonio say he has been stabilized.

Original Story

TXGunGeek’s main point? Getting involved in third party issues.

Now certainly, we can understand the situation. You see a fight. You see perhaps some man beating up a woman. You are going to have a hard time standing by and watching it.

But do you know what’s going on?

Is it worth getting in the middle of someone else’s heated issue, because it may cost you. Mr. Vivaldi was fortunate he wasn’t killed, but look at the medical bills, lost work, and who knows what longer-term impacts upon his quality of life he’s going to have. Was it worth it?

Was it worth (potentially) dying over?

This is a personal decision. We all draw our lines at different points. Even if you consider the “beer & TV maxim” of self-defense, we can still draw our lines in different places.

To come to the aid of a third party is a personal decision. It may also depend upon who this third party is: your spouse, your child, your boss, a friend, an ex-significant other, a random person on the street. But you need to figure out where your line is BEFORE you get involved. Where is your line? where is your threshold?

Another point to consider is something John Farnam says all the time about how to avoid trouble:

Donʼt go to stupid places; donʼt associate with stupid people; donʼt do stupid things. We will add to that, be in bed by 10 oʼclock.

Updated 2013-04-04: There’s more to the story.

Updated story

According to the San Antonio Police Department’s preliminary report, a friend of Vivaldi’s told police that three people — Vivaldi, himself and another friend — had attended Sunday night’s San Antonio Spurs game and went to the gentlemen’s club afterwards, all part of a birthday celebration. SAPD noted all three were under the influence of alcohol. The names of Vivaldi’s friends were redacted in the report.

As the trio was getting into a cab, Vivaldi’s friend said an unknown white male came to the driver’s side window and started yelling an obscenity-laced string of words at the group.

The first friend of Vivaldi’s told police the trio exited the cab and started walking towards the yelling man, who waved them on towards him. The friend says he then noticed a white female who was with the male. Vivaldi would reportedly go on to remove his shirt as he and his friends moved towards the man.

Eventually, Vivaldi’s friend told police the man made it to his pickup truck in the parking lot, pulled out a pistol and aimed it at Vivaldi’s other friend. After trying to talk the gunman down, the first friend of Vivaldi’s said the man turned the weapon towards Vivaldi and fired multiple shots.

Whenever I hear, read, or see some guy taking off his shirt in this context, I always think about LowTechCombat’s “Alpha Male” notion.

Anyways, I’ll just refer back to Mr. Farnam’s quote above.

Mayor Leffingwell – known by the company you keep?

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

[Austin’s] Mayor Lee Leffingwell was one of the first in the state to join the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition.

Full story.

They say you are known by the company you keep.

Members of MAIG have a pretty good track record of corruption, committing crimes, being indicted, being arrested.

Mayor Leffingwell, what’s a reasonable person to think about you?

 

FBI Pistol Qualification Course – an evolution

/ hsoi / 8 Comments

(Updated: adding the 2019 revision of the course).

During the Rangemaster Instructor Course I attended in 2013, one of the tests we had to pass was the FBI Pistol Qualification Course.

It’s worthy of note that just a few months ago (in 2013), the FBI changed their qualification course.

QUANTICO, Va. — The FBI has quietly broken with its long-standing firearms training regimen, putting a new emphasis on close-quarters combat to reflect the overwhelming number of incidents in which suspects are confronting their targets at point-blank range.

The new training protocols were formally implemented last January after a review of nearly 200 shootings involving FBI agents during a 17-year period. The analysis found that 75% of the incidents involved suspects who were within 3 yards of agents when shots were exchanged.

The move represents a dramatic shift for the agency, which for more than three decades has relied on long-range marksmanship training.

[…]

“The thing that jumps out at you from the (shooting incident) research is that if we’re not preparing agents to get off three to four rounds at a target between 0 and 3 yards, then we’re not preparing them for what is likely to happen in the real world,” says FBI training instructor Larry “Pogo” Akin, who helps supervise trainees on the live shooting range…. A Justice Department analysis of 63 killings of local police in 2011 found that 73% were ambushes or execution-style assaults.

[…]

Until last January, the pistol-qualification course required agents to participate in quarterly exercises in which they fired 50 rounds, more than half of them from between 15 and 25 yards. The new course involves 60 rounds, with 40 of those fired from between 3 and 7 yards.

The new exercise also requires that agents draw their weapons from concealed positions, usually from holsters shielded by jackets or blazers, to mimic their traditional plainclothes dress in the field.

So of course during the class, we shot the new qualification course.

I asked Tom Givens for a copy of the new FBI test and he was kind enough to provide it. So with that, let’s look at the old test vs. the new test.

Old FBI Test

This is the previous FBI Pistol Qualification Course, as documented here.

This standard, revised April 1997, is used to qualify both agents and instructors.

Target: FBI “Q”
Ammunition: 50 rounds service ammunition
Scoring: Hits in our touching “bottle” count 2 points; misses and hits outside bottle count 0 points
Qualification: 85% to qualify, 90% for instructors

STAGE 1

Starting Point: 25 yard line
Time Allotted: 75 seconds
Total Rounds: 18

Start with a fully loaded weapon. On command shooter draws and fires 6 rounds prone position, decocks, fires 3 rounds strong side kneeling barricade position, 6 rounds strong side standing barricade position, and 3 rounds weak side kneeling barricade position. Upon completing stage, the shooter will conduct a magazine exchange and holster a loaded weapon.

STAGE II

Starting Point: 25 yard line
Time Allotted: 2 rounds in 6 seconds; 4 strings of 2 rounds in 3 seconds each
Total Rounds: 10

Start at the 25 yard line. On command the shooter moves to the 15 yard line, draws and fires 2 rounds in 6 seconds, decocks, and returns to low ready. The shooter will fire 4 strings of 2 rounds in 3 seconds, decock and return to low ready after each string. Upon completing Stage II, the shooter holsters a loaded weapon [without reloading unless gun capacity is only 10 rds –ed].

STAGE III

Starting Point: 15 yard line
Time Allotted: 15 seconds
Total Rounds: 12

Start at the 15 yard line. On command the shooter moves to the 7 yard line, draws and fires 12 rounds in 15 seconds, to include a reload. Upon completing stage III, the shooter holsters a loaded weapon. Shooter then arranges remaining 10 rounds to have 5 rounds in the weapon and 5 rounds in a spare magazine.

STAGE IV

Starting Point: 7 yard line
Time Allotted: 15 seconds
Total Rounds: 10

Start at the 7 yard line. On command the shooter moves to the 5 yard line, draws and fires 5 rounds with strong hand only, reloads, transfers the weapon to weak hand and fires 5 rounds weak hand only. Upon completing stage IV, the shooter will unload and holster an empty weapon.

New FBI Test (2013)

The following is the new FBI Pistol Qualification Course (revised January 2013), as provided to me by Tom Givens, of Rangemaster. I’ve retyped it only for format/layout.

Target: QIT-99 silhouette
Ammunition: 60 rounds
Scoring: 1 point per hit
Qualification: 48/60 (80%) for agents; 54/60 (90%) for instructors

All fired from concealed carry (you will draw from your concealed holster).

Stage 1 is the only stage involving one-handed shooting. All other stages are shot two-handed.

STAGE I

Starting Point: 3 yards
Total Rounds: 12

  1. 3 rounds, 3 seconds, SHO
  2. 3 rounds, 3 seconds, SHO
  3. 3 rounds SHO, switch hands, 3 rounds WHO, 8 seconds

STAGE II

Starting Point: 5 yards
Total Rounds: 12

  1. 3 rounds, 3 seconds
  2. 3 rounds, 3 seconds
  3. 3 rounds, 3 seconds
  4. 3 rounds, 3 seconds

STAGE III

Starting Point: 7 yards
Total Rounds: 16

  1. 4 rounds, 4 seconds
  2. 4 rounds, 4 seconds
  3. Start with only 4 rounds in the gun (1 in the chamber, 3 in the magazine). 4 rounds; empty gun (emergency) reload; 4 more rounds; 8 seconds

STAGE IV

Starting Point: 15 yards
Total Rounds: 10

  1. 3 rounds, 6 seconds
  2. 3 rounds, 6 seconds
  3. 4 rounds, 8 seconds

STAGE V

Starting Point: 25 yards
Total Rounds: 10

  1. Move to cover; 3 rounds standing; kneel, 2 rounds; 15 seconds
  2. again

Commentary (comparing 1997 vs 2013)

The differences are pretty stark. Neither test denies the “other case” is possible, but the emphasis is certainly different. The old test certainly puts the emphasis on long-range shooting, with more than half of the test being shot at 15 yards and beyond. In fact, very little emphasis is placed on anything “close-in”. The new test is mostly about close-in, with two-thirds of the test being at or within what the old test considered “close”!

But this is all good. If you look at private citizen encounters, FBI agent encounters, DEA agent encounters — all similar in the sense that they are people in plain clothes and thus all look “like potential victims” to criminals (just the criminal failed the victim selection process) — it all added up to what became the established “typical gunfight”: 3 shots, 3 steps/yards, 3 seconds. So if that’s what the typical gunfight is going to be, shouldn’t we ensure people can perform in that capacity?

For those of you that think this is easy, good for you, because you evidently have the necessary skill. No one is born with this skill. I teach many levels of classes, and I see many people who cannot pass this test. I see many people who cannot manage “3 shots, 3 yards, 3 seconds”. Or rather I should say, 3 acceptable hits. Of course, through instruction and practice, it doesn’t take too long for folks to achieve this level of skill.

Back to the tests.

I appreciate the new test’s one-hand shooting at 3 yards. This isn’t to say that within 3 yards you should be shooting one-handed, but rather that you ought to be able to. Why? At that distance, you may well be using your other hand for other things, like moving someone out of the way, blocking a punch, etc..

One thing that’s a bit of a bummer about both tests? Scoring is “anywhere on the target”. Take a look at the targets. While they are fairly correct in their shaping, it’s an acceptable hit to get it anywhere within the main outline. Now while I can understand that from a procedural and regulatory side, it’s not really an ideal thing from a personal-defense side. I mean, if you have to pull your gun, it’s because your life or the life of someone you are responsible for is in imminent jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury; thus you need to get the attacker to stop as quickly as possible, and a marginal hit through the belly fat doesn’t do it. So make the test harder on yourself: use that QIT-99 but only count as acceptable those hits within the inner rectangle.

I like the new test. I think it presents a better representation of modern reality. Try it out and see how you do. Be honest with yourself. If you can clean it, awesome; you obviously know what to do to achieve a high level of skill, so keep moving forward. If you cannot clean it, analyze where you need work (25 yards!!), seek instruction, and get to work.

2019 FBI Test

In January 2019, the FBI released another update to their qualification course. Tom Givens had direct input into this update of the qual, and some good improvements were made.

Target: QIT-99 silhouette
Ammunition: 50 rounds
Scoring: 2 points per hit
Qualification: > 90 for instructors (45 acceptable hits)

STAGE I

Starting Point: 3 yards, One handed

  1. Draw, 3 rds SHO, switch, 3 rds WHO, in 6 seconds

STAGE II

Starting Point: 5 yards, Two handed

  1. Draw, 3 rds in 3 sec
  2. Ready, 3 rds in 2 sec
  3. Ready, 6 rds in 4 sec

STAGE III

Starting Point: 7 yards, Two handed

  1. Draw, 5 rds in 5 sec
  2. Ready, 4 rds, empty gun reload, 4 more rds, all in 8 sec (start with only 4 rnds in gun)
  3. Ready, 5 rds in 4 sec

STAGE IV

Starting Point: 15 yards, Two handed

  1. Draw, 3 rds in 6 sec
  2. Ready, 3 rds in 5 sec

Stage V

Starting Point: 25 yards, Two handed

  1. Draw, 4 rds standing, drop to kneeling, 4rds, 20 sec

Commentary (comparing 2013 vs 2019)

When you look at 2013 vs 2019, the differences are not as stark as vs. the 1997 version. What I’m going to say here is my review of the differences (not Tom’s, the FBI’s, or anyone else’s reasoning for why the changes).

The first thing that jumps out is the qual is now 50 rounds, which helps administration since ammo commonly comes in boxes of 50 rounds.

One-handed shooting changed a good bit. It went from 3 strings to 1, and the 1 string in 2019 is akin to a string in 2013 but with a tighter par time.

At 5 yards, the round count is the same, but the strings vary. Instead of 4 of the same, it varies up each string. I think this is good because it tests different skills and provides opportunity to see where something might break down so it can be fixed. For example, maybe someone can’t make draw and 3 in 3 but can make ready and 3 in 2 – that would expose slowness on the draw.

I also like how at both 5 and 7 yards you get a longer string, akin to Bill Drills, which can better help assess recoil control issues, eyesight, and other things that Bill Drills are good for.

The loss of cover at 25 I reckon may be to facilitate administration.

Also, notice how some strings are “draw and shoot X in Y”, followed by “from the ready, shoot X in Y-1”? That’s not quite a 1-second draw, but it is a 1-second get the gun out and into ready – because from there both strings are the same (going from ready). That’s still peppy.

If you like the 2013 version, nothing stopping you from using it. It’s still a good qual. I’ll probably continue to use the 2019 version because of ease of administration and being part of my training to date.

Why don’t you have a backup?

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

In our modern world, we seem to accept that things break.

Things break because anything mechanical sooner or later does (parts wear and age). Maybe it’s because things are more cheaply manufactured and they just don’t make them like they used to. Maybe sometimes the unexpected comes up, like a nail in the tire. Regardless of why, we accept things will break. Sometimes we’ll have a spare on hand, like another tire in the trunk; we change the tire, and get back on the road. Sometimes we don’t, and we have to go get a replacement before we can keep going. Often not having a backup on hand isn’t a big deal because it’s not critical – if my lawn mower breaks, I don’t need a second because it’s just not that critical. I can wait on the repair, or I can borrow from a neighbor. That tends to be how we look at things is by how important recovering from failure is. Recovering from failing to mow my lawn? Not that big a deal. Recovering from a flat tire? Bigger deal (and harder to go get a spare when you’re 50 miles from nowhere and your means of travel has a flat).

Consider computers. How important is it to have a back-up of your vital data? It was really neat when Apple came out with Time Machine because that was “back-up for the rest of us”. Back-ups used to be a very convoluted thing, and while Time Machine isn’t a complete back-up solution, it suffices for most needs and gets most people back up and running when that important file is deleted or their computer fails. And boy, aren’t we happy for it when that paper we’ve worked on all night can be salvaged? Or we don’t wind up looking stupid because we lost the PowerPoint files for tomorrow’s presentation? Back-ups save our butts.

So yeah, we seem to understand the importance of a backup.

With that in mind, Greg Ellifritz asks “Do you carry a backup gun?”  I’d rather ask the question: “Why aren’t you carrying a backup gun?”.

Guns are mechanical. They can and will fail. If you’ve shot guns enough, I’m sure you’ve seen a failure in some regard. Most of the time it was no big deal, because you were doing something non-critical. If you’re just practicing at the range, it wasn’t critical. If you missed that deer, it really sucks but isn’t necessarily critical.

But if your life was on the line when the failure occurred? That’s very critical. And what does Murphy’s Law state?

And it’s not like you can put the attack on hold while you go fetch another gun. If you need it, you need it right here, right now.

Here’s a few points to consider.

First, simple failure. Your primary gun could just fail for whatever reason. It doesn’t matter the reason, and “now” is not the time to care or figure out why. You may have reaction to “tap, rack, resume”, and that’s good, but what if that doesn’t solve it? The clock is ticking, what to do?

If you do want to get into specifics of failures, consider that a failure like a double-feed? Sure you can fix that in the field, but even in the best hands it takes a LONG time to accomplish. It’s a lot faster to drop the gun and draw a backup.

If your primary is a revolver, yes, revolvers can fail. When a revolver does fail, most failures are going to require a gunsmith to correct thus you will not recover from the failure in the field. So what’s the solution? Back up. If nothing else, consider how slow it takes to reload a revolver; it’s faster to draw a second gun.

People get shot in the hand. You see it all the time in Force-on-Force training. Why does this happen? Numerous reasons. First, when shooting, a good shooting platform puts the gun in front of your chest, and where do you think they are aiming? your chest. So if your hands are in the way, your hands will get hit. Second, often times when there’s a threat people focus on the threat. So if the threat is a gun, people focus on the gun, chances are they may shoot at the gun, which is held by hands. So if you get shot in the hand, the bullet is unlikely to be stopped by your hands, thus the gun will also receive the bullet. That may well render the gun inoperable, cause you to drop the gun, etc..  Now what do you do?

What if you’ve got a friend that needs a gun? Now you can give them one.

Consider as well how a second can make up for shortcomings. If you carry on your strong-side hip, it’s probably difficult for you to draw while remaining seated. What if you had a BUG on your ankle? Perhaps easier to draw. It may not be that your primary is inoperable, just inaccessible.

I know some would consider it “more paranoid” or “crazy” to carry a second gun. Are we paranoid for having a spare tire? Are we paranoid for running Time Machine? Label it however you wish, but the reasons are the same: we accept failure can occur, and we have a plan to contend with it.

(aside: for those in the Central Texas area that wish to learn more about and train with the concept of a BUG, KR Training will be offering it’s DPS-BUG class again this summer, July 20, 2013).

Same end, different means

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

…we can do better than this. We can do better to make sure that fewer parents have to endure the pain of losing a child to an act of violence.

– President Barack Obama

full transcript

I agree.

I don’t agree with the reasoning that disarming the citizenry is the way to achieve said safety.

And yes folks, that’s ultimately what he (and his ilk) are after. They tried to slice off a huge chunk, but since that won’t succeed instead they will slowly chip away at the stone. If you start to let the chips fall, eventually there won’t be a rock left and you’ll wonder what happened.

We teach and strongly advocate for things like women’s self-defense clinics where we teach women to fight back against rapists. Rape is an atrocious act of violence. I don’t care who you are or what you think, but the Truth is the vast majority of women can be overpowered by any man — even a teenage male. Are you advocating for my daughter to be a victim? It was not her choice to be weaker, to be smaller, and thus potential prey. If she is at a disadvantage through no fault and choice of her own, what do you suggest she do to overcome potential disparity? What can you honestly suggest she do that could prevent a 250# 25-year old male from raping, beating, and leaving her for dead? Yell “NO!”, blow a whistle, and palm-strike him to the nose? or as some legislators recently suggested, she just pee/poop her pants or tell the attacker she has a disease? I tell you what… come try that on me and see how far you get (pure training environment, just to demonstrate the reality of how much that technique fails).

Like all tools, we use tools to overcome disparity. Most of us aren’t strong enough to pound a nail or turn a screw without a tool. And a gun? That’s something that enables the weak to overcome the disparity against a strong attack. Palm strike or pepper spray or taser? Think about how close you have to be to the attacker to make those things work — too close. A gun? it’s designed to overcome distance. It’s designed to overcome disparity.

I don’t want to lose my children to an act of violence. I don’t want you to lose your children to an act of violence. I used to believe that there was never a reason to hit, that violence was never the answer. I’m glad I overcame those notions, because I left my bubble and learned that yes sometimes there are reasons to hit, and yes sometimes violence is the (only) answer. The idealist in me wishes it wasn’t so, but the realist in me knows it to be true and has finally accepted it. I don’t know anyone that would sit idly by while their children were beaten, raped, kidnapped, etc.. What would they do? They would fight. They would be willing to sacrifice their own lives for the life of their child. If you’re going to fight, if you’re going to be fighting for the life of you and your child, don’t you want ever advantage possible that would enable you to prevail?

We all want the same thing, but we vastly disagree with the road to achieve it.

AAR: Rangemaster Firearms Instructor Development & Certification Course – March 2013

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

I was fortunate this past March 2013 weekend to finally participate in Rangemaster’s Firearms Instructor Development & Certification Course, taught by Tom Givens and hosted by Karl Rehn of KR Training.

I’ve tried to take this course for the past some years, but was unable to for one reason or another, usually logistics due to involved travel to Memphis. But now that Tom and crew were coming to my turf, there was no reason not to make the class.

Setting

The event was held over 3 days (Friday through Sunday) from about 9 am to 6 pm each day (a 24 hour course). It’s an intensive and dense course, split about 50/50 between the classroom and the range. This is not intended to be a class where you learn how to shoot, but rather a place to learn how to be a better instructor (firearms and private citizen self-defense in particular, but of course many teaching concepts can be applied anywhere in life). Thus this is not a class to take to learn how to shoot or how to be a better shooter; it’s a class geared towards instruction.

Weather was most cooperative. Spring is starting here in Central Texas, with the wildflowers in bloom and the temperatures just right… mostly. Friday we were pretty warm outside, broke a good sweat. Saturday we were pretty cold with some early rain threats. And Sunday we were cold and fought a bitter cold 25+ MPH wind (with higher gusts). So while not ideal, that’s life — you don’t get to choose when the fight happens, so you just work through it and have to be that much better.

Tom came with his wife Lynn, assistants John and Ray, and of course Skeeter his Back Up Dog (for when your real dog breaks). We had 15 students, including numerous KR Training assistant instructors (Karl took the class too).

Content Overview

The course is about a 50/50 split between the classroom and the range.

It’s important to understand that the context of this course is that of private citizen self-defense and concealed carry. This is not law-enforcement, military, nor competition. Could folks working in those areas benefit from such a course? Certainly. But it’s important to realize that the core context is private citizen self defense with firearms, and as such all is geared towards that end.

Classroom

The classroom is where most of the relevant material comes. It runs the gamut from safety, parts and nomenclature, history (Tom is one of the best repositories of history), adult learning, coaching techniques, use of force issues, speaking/presentation techniques, etc.. Anything that might come up in the classroom is discussed along with information and techniques for working with it.

There are 3 tests by the end of the weekend. Two of them are classroom tests: a written test, and a short presentation on an assigned topic.  Yes, you will get up in front of people and do a presentation, because if you’re going to teach, what do you think you’ll be doing? 🙂

To help with the written test, you are provided with a 170+ page workbook containing a host of useful information. Some directly applicable to the course, others as supporting material for you to use afterwards. And yes, keep this book and use it as reference. Reread it from time to time as it’s a useful and information-dense resource.

One subtle thing Tom does in his classroom work is practice what he preaches. For example, Tom talks about the use of “other things” when teaching so it’s not just you up there droning for hours. He used video to show the operation of various firearms, because the video was shot on the range with Tom actually shooting and manipulating the guns — can’t do that in the classroom, so what a useful thing video can be as a supportive aid. Also, Tom talks about not hiding behind a lectern, stand to the side. While there’s no true lectern in the KR Training classroom, Tom still stood off to the side of the table. There’s much to pick up and learn from, if you pay attention.

Range

Of course, everyone looks forward to the range work. We started shooting some diagnostics so Tom and his crew could assess where everyone’s skill is. A few things were cleaned up, and qualification tests were shot. All tests were scored, but the tests shot on the first 2 days were not recorded.

If you haven’t shot much at 25 yards (or even 15 yards) you need to work on that. There’s a fair bit of work at those ranges, and they are humbling. 🙂

But the range time wasn’t all drills. The range is also the meat of the content for many classes you aspire to teach, so you need to know how to handle the range and run the range. Tom didn’t go over much about how to run the range itself, and for that I’d suggest something like NRA Instructor classes and RSO certification (Tom can only teach so much in 24 hours). But he did talk about how to interact with students on the range. He provided useful tips and techniques for teaching technique, diagnosing problems, how to remedy problems, and how to convey numerous concepts in a way that makes sense to students. One really useful technique he provided was how to allow you, the instructor, to verify a student actually understands what sight alignment and sight picture are; I think we’ll need to keep a “red gun” in the range wagon for just such occasions! (you’ll have to go to class to learn the technique, sorry).

We also shot numerous drills to introduce us to the host of drills and variations on drills that can be used to teach and practice various concepts. Of course, Tom did use it as an opportunity to put us under pressure. For example, after introducing the whole class to the “casino drill”, he asked for variations. Someone said how you could have people shoot drills individually, because that puts greater pressure on them to perform (the eyes of their peers upon them, which is a huge stress). So what did Tom then do? Have us all shoot the drill individually with our peers watching. 🙂

Sunday contains the third test: the shooting test.

We shot two tests for recorded score. The first test was the FBI Qualification. Just a few months ago, the FBI revised their test based upon improved and modern data. They removed that which doesn’t happen so much, and replaced it with that which happens more often. I haven’t been able to find a printed copy of the test online, and didn’t have time to record it during the test administration. But you will shoot from 3 to 25 yards, two hands, one hand, draw from concealment, reloads, and time pressure. It’s a tough course; I think Karl was the only one to clean it and he didn’t clean it every time he shot it. The other course was Rangemaster’s Instructor Qual course, which was also revised in light of the FBI revisions (I believe). It’s similar to the FBI course, but tougher (e.g. smaller scoring zones). Both tests were shot twice and the better of the two scores (on each test) recorded.

Updated: I have written up the COF for the FBI Pistol Qualification Course.

Thus at the end of the weekend your class score was made up of the FBI test, the Rangemaster test, and your written test.

And yes… you have to pass with a high score on all three portions. There’s a high standard to uphold, and no, not everyone passed.

What I Learned

A lot. 🙂

I’ve taken numerous Rangemaster courses in the past, and much of the core material is the same. This stands to reason, given the source. But this class was not a rehash of Combative Pistol 2. This class was teaching about teaching, and so material was presented from that angle.

That said, having heard some of these things before was useful. On the one hand, it’s always good to hear it again because redundancy fosters learning. It just helps me become better in general. On the other hand, because I heard it before, it meant there was less quantity of new things to cram into my head. One can only absorb so much, and the class material is dense with information — you won’t remember it all. So having heard much of this before meant there was less I had to cram in my head, just refresh what was already there.

I certainly picked up on numerous things I can immediately put to use in my work teaching and assisting at KR Training. In fact, one was kinda funny. My assigned presentation topic was “follow-through”. I giggled as soon as I received my topic, because back when I was taking NRA Instructor training? My assigned presentation topic was… “follow-through”. I did a much better presentation this time around, but I hope future instructor trainings can give me a different topic! Else I’ll take it as a sign someone really wants me to be an expert on follow-through. 🙂  Of course, I talk about follow-through every time I help with a Basic Pistol class at KR Training, so the topic was old-hat to me. I already knew what to say, what to do, and how to present it. Of course, I still practiced and prepped for it, because this setting and audience was slightly different. In doing so, I came up with a revision for my presentation. When we introduce the concept, we use an analogy of golf. But golf, bowling, baseball, whatever… that “swing” is a familiar concept to folks. I came up with a better example: tennis. Why? Because in all those others, it’s just you. In tennis, someone is shooting back at you, if you will. I think it’s a slightly better analogy because it makes it more evident why you need to follow-through, so you can get ready to shoot again (or return the volley, if you will). Of course, the other analogies I think are still fine. I think it’s more that if I was say talking to someone in a bullseye shooting context? I might use golf. But if I’m talking in a self-defense context (which is what I usually am doing), I think tennis works a little better.

The other fun thing about my presentation? I didn’t present what I planned to present. I figured we were supposed to present as if we were presenting to an audience of beginning students. That is, present like we’d present if we were teaching a class. Well, Karl was the first to go (his topic was safety) and he took a different angle. Givens teaches with the 4 Cooper Rules, Karl with the 3 NRA rules. Karl took this opportunity to present to the classroom of (aspiring) instructors about safety and those 2 sets of rules. So his presentation was informative to the current audience. I liked that. I also observed other presentations and found myself wondering who they were presenting to; did they identify their audience when they developed their presentation? Hey… I taught public speaking for a number of years, I can’t help but observe these things. 🙂  So I decided on the fly to modify my presentation and instead of presenting as if I was teaching follow-through to a class of beginner students, I opted to teach this classroom of instructors a technique they could use in their classrooms for teaching follow-through (tennis analogy, using the SIRT gun, whiteboard, etc.). Came off great. 🙂  But I’m not afraid to speak in public… probably got that from my politician dad.

So how did I do? I scored a 96% on the FBI Qual test, 235/250 (94%) on the Rangemaster, and 98% on the written. I passed.

I did get a lot of other things out of the class, including assessment of shooting skills and what I need to work on from here. I’ll write more on those in the coming days.

Should YOU take this class? If you desire to teach? Yes you should. However, I’m not sure this should be a first class. I think one might get more out of it if first they obtain their NRA Instructor Certifications and RSO. Even if you don’t do them first, you should still obtain those certifications. I also think it may be useful to attend one of Rangemaster’s other courses, such as the Combative Pistol or Dynamic Marksmanship, or their Level 1-5 handgun courses. This gives you an introduction to how Tom runs things, his material, his point of view. Thus when you come here, you aren’t focused on everything, you can focus more on just the “how to be an instructor” portion of stuff.

After taking this class, are you ready to teach? Nope. Certainly you’ll have a better foundation for things, but nothing substitutes for experience. If you can, seek apprenticeships. I have benefitted greatly from Karl Rehn’s generosity: his time, his teaching, his knowledge, his friendship, his mentorship, and of course, having me as an assistant instructor at KR Training. There’s so much that can and will happen on the range; to have an experienced eye watching, helping, and teaching you will benefit you greatly. This will allow you to have greater confidence in your ability to teach, and it will show in your students.

Thank you to Karl for hosting, and Tom, Lynn, John (great name!), and Ray for coming out to teach us…. and Skeeter for snoring in the back of the classroom.

What NOT to do

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Here’s what not to do

Full story here. Another article. (h/t the gun wire)

I’ll start out saying a lot of people are referring to a “concealed weapon” or that the man had a “concealed weapons permit”. I saw nothing in the video nor the news articles that give any indication of concealment. I found nothing that mentions the man has a permit/license. The gun was apparently in the car, brought out by the wife, and in plain sight handed to the husband. It’s possible he and/or she have a permit, and perhaps the laws of North Carolina are such that you couldn’t even have a gun in the car without a permit/license. But even still, nothing says one can’t have a gun illegally; not to say they did, just trying to dispel the notion of any sort of permit, license, concealment, etc. since I saw nothing in any article that indicated as such.

Story

It’s obviously a road rage incident, given the words the man starts out with. I’m sure there’s a lot more that preceded this. He’s angry, he got irate, seems to have followed the first vehicle to their destination, approaches with heated words, then punches (assaults) the driver. Naturally, driver takes issue with this attack, and defends himself. Driver’s friend also jumps in. Whether their fisticuffs were reasonable or excessive is for the courts to decide, but it appears they worked to stop the rager’s attack and broke off their defense as soon as they stopped the threat.

Event over.

But now, wife comes out of the car with a gun, casually hands it to husband, and husband takes back off after them. It doesn’t matter if he wanted to injure or kill them, or just scare them, his use of deadly force at this time was not in defense of himself because he was no longer in imminent jeopardy. This is now why:

Bradley Turner is charged with discharging a weapon into property, two counts of assault by pointing a gun, going armed to the terror of the people, injury to personal property and assault. His wife is charged with two counts of assault by pointing a gun, according to a sheriff’s office news release.

And there you go.

Lessons

Everything done here was wrong. Well, on Mr. & Mrs. Turner’s part.

Road rage. Yes, it’s easy to get angry when someone cuts you off in traffic. You know what? Let it go. Often most “cut-offs” happen as an accident. That is, there is no malicious intent. Yes maybe they were stupid and negligent, but rarely is someone being an asshole. But you know what tends to lead towards asshole driving behavior and escalation? Letting “road rage” happen, by getting angry about it and letting your anger and emotions control you, instead of you controlling your emotions.

Approaching the driver and punching him. Not smart.

Realizing the driver has friends thus you’re outnumbered, yet you still start shit? Really not smart.

Fisticuffs ends. Wife didn’t work to defend her husband, just after the fact handed her husband a gun. Husband then started a second attack, now armed with a gun.

Folks, this is not the way to handle things.

As noted above, Mr. & Mrs. Turner are being charged with a multitude of crimes, and rightly so. If we go back to them being permit holders or not, it really doesn’t matter. Having a CHL/CWP doesn’t authorize you to be a dumbass. It doesn’t authorize you to wantonly kill people or enact revenge. If anything, it bears upon you a greater responsibility to manage and control your actions and your emotions. You are accepting a higher standard of responsibility and accountability and must hold yourself to it.

Where I’ve been the past 3 days

/ hsoi / 9 Comments

Here’s where I’ve been and what I’ve been doing the past 3 days:

I’ll catch up on blogging, email, and everything else in life over the coming days. Thank you for your patience.

Ammo angle

/ hsoi / 10 Comments

With the current ammo crunch going on, here’s something to think about.

This came out of the March 2013 Tiger Valley newsletter.

My source did give me some advice for this summer.  There will be a shortage of hunting caliber ammunition.  This is caused by the great interest in black rifle.  It seems that most factories are ramping up to produce the .223 by the train load.

Jives with some things I’ve seen. On the one hand, if you hunt with an obscure caliber that black rifles aren’t chambered for (e.g. .25-06), you may well find the ammo on the shelves. But if you hunt with something like .308 Win (AR-10’s), you may have a hard time finding it. Or it may be that you can find target ammo in the caliber, but not hunting ammo.

Makes sense given the state of things.

Just consider that if you’re going to go deer hunting in the Fall/Winter, it may be worthwhile to look for a box or two now. They’ll keep.