Big name shooting schools -- worth it?

[Full Metal Jacket]

F.M.J.

You do realize that professional shooting instruction is not all about fake-little-town, Disneyland fun shoots, right?

re-read my entire post plz.

 

[stickhauler]

Amen Ken! I've heard the claims from many here in Ohio that they "didn't learn a thing" from the training required to get a concealed carry license, I went in thinking I had a pretty decent base knowledge. I'd been in the military in the 101st Airborne, shot a lot there on ranges and when deployed to Nam. I had a instructor from our local sheriff's department as an instructor, and I had no idea what I didn't know coming in. I've taken advanced classes under this same guy, and learned even more.

I'd love to have the time and cash to go to one of the big name advanced training sites.

Sadly, too many people who have never fired a shot in anger assume they have the skills to effectively defend themselves in any given situation, and believe a advanced course is a waste of time. Either they'll never need the skill set in their life, or that additional training is a game. The day you believe you "know it all", sit down and die, because then you become a danger to yourself and everyone around you. It's always possible to learn new skills, it simply takes an open mind and an ego check.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

it simply takes an open mind and an ego check

i certainly would love to take training classes, learning new techniuqes is always welcome, as i mentioned in my previous post. i would assume most people think along these same lines.

cost, however, is the prohibitive factor for most people. the cost of the school, and the ammo needed is quite a financial burden for a lot of folks. i think it has more to do with that, than with ego, my friend.

 

[BullfrogKen]

FMJ, I try to read a post I'm responding to directly several times before I post a response that challenges it. Which part of what you said do you feel I misunderstood?

It's always possible to learn new skills, it simply takes an open mind and an ego check.

And that response entirely sums up the answer to the question posed in this thread. Enter the class with a good attitude and without your ego in the gear bag, and you'll learn a whole lot.


Where are you in Ohio? I know people who have traveled from Central Pennsylvania out to TDI to take classes; some are repeat customers. And if you have a range nearby where you can organize a class, John Farnam will travel to you. In fact, a good many of the instructors, like Tom Givens at Rangemaster or the Insights Training crew will travel to your range to instruct. They come out to my club to teach often.

As a side bonus, if you arrange the class and manage they manage to fill it with a given number of students (usually around 10), your tuition is often entirely waived. Some take the class for free, others will share that discount with their friends and every gets to take the class at a reduced rate. Classes are much more enjoyable when you take it with good friends.

 

[JoeSlomo]

Really? How many classes have you taken?

Enough to understand that the key to success is mastery of the fundamentals.

There isn't any "secret" technique to any form of shooting, just the sound application of fundamentals, and different approaches to those fundamentals.
Different instructors know different techniques of applying and enhancing the application of fundamentals, but there isn't a lot of "groundbreaking" things to be found that has not been done already.


I stand by my opinion that the "big schools" have good instructors and excellent facilities, however, unless one is a novice, there will be no major points of learning, simply smaller points and approaches to both training and shooting.

 

[stickhauler]

And clearly you took my meaning wrong, I said as well I'd love to have the time and cash to attend a big name school. I don't recall calling anyone out here as a guilty party, but I'm sure you know people who, based on training they got in the service, or "been shooting since my daddy took me out as a kid" assume they have the skill set to deal with a self defense shooting situation with no training at all other than their "life experience." If you don't know people like that, thank God you live in a sheltered world, because I see them all the time around here. They'd sooner spend a couple hundred bucks for the newest "tacticool" toy for their AR than spend a nickle to hone their skills.

I hunted a lot of years, saw kids come up who went through, granted not professional instructors, but hands-on training before they even hit the woods, and were prepared when it came time to take a shot at a big buck. I also saw kids who were taught by arrogant parents, who were convinced they knew everything about a firearm, who were scary as all hell in the woods, and when it came time to take a shot, they froze solid. I equate a self defense shooting situation in a similar manner, it's not whether you're an excellent shot, it's more your ability to react to the situation at hand. If you train to the point where that reaction is automatic, you have a chance to come out alive. If not, well, you went into a situation ill prepared, and paid the price.

I see too many people who seemingly believe buying the coolest gun, shooting it a few times a year at best, prepares them to save their life if it comes to it. Maybe they'll get lucky, I pray they do. But, it takes a special something to take the shot when you need to, even with an animal you're hunting. It's way different to take a shot at a human, ask anyone who has ever fired a shot in anger if you haven't been placed in a combat situation. And those instances are generally not the same as a self defense situation, you aren't usually in a face-to-face encounter in combat like a normal self defense deal is.

I had a dear friend who was a cop here in town, a lady who decided at age 35 to become a cop. God bless her, she made it through the training, and was a damned good cop. Went through advanced weapons classes on a regular basis, and felt she was ready to do the job. Went on a domestic violence call one day, and had a kid draw down on here with a SKS. She forgot everything about reacting, and reverted to having human feelings for the criminal, and tried to talk him down. She even laid down her service firearm to disarm the situation. And the little bastard shot her right above her vest, though with a rifle, I doubt that made much difference.

She lived in a wheel chair for about 4 years, paralyzed from the neck down, and passed away a few years ago. There is no training that prepares you for a shooting incident where you make a choice to defuse a situation, that training is supposed to teach you to react to a threat.

 

[stickhauler]

West Union is doable from here, I live in Dayton. I'll have to see if we can't get a group together at the gun club I shoot at, if not, travel to there isn't too much of an issue from here if I can arrange a weekend class. Thanks for the head's up!

 

[BullfrogKen]

Enough to understand that the key to success is mastery of the fundamentals.

There isn't any "secret" technique to any form of shooting, just the sound application of fundamentals, and different approaches to those fundamentals.

Well on that point you and I are in full agreement.


You made too much of a blanket statement to allow me to let it go unchallenged, though. There is a big difference between a shooting novice and a training novice.

The practitioner who has already begun walking the path to become well-trained won't be learning through drinking those huge gulps of information at the firehose anymore. By the time he's had a few classes under his belt, he's begun the move from unconscious incompetence to varying levels of competence. He'll even begin to realize and become aware of the things he doesn't know - conscious incompetence.

But there's a big difference between someone who knows the mechanics of how to shoot well from someone who knows how to wage a good fight with a gun.


You seem to know the difference. Sometimes it's hard to remember back to the time where I was in my life before I started my journey down the training path. The chasm from zero to one is at lot wider than from one to two.

For those who understand economics, I'll put it in these terms - the marginal benefit (the chance you'll learn something vital or entirely new) after many classes becomes less and less. But the value is in the refresher. Even highly-compensated, veteran major league sports players go to training camps, and pay very well for personal coaches.



Back to wgp's original questions.

I have taken several classes (handgun, carbine and shotgun) with a local LEO who teaches in different cities around my area. I like his classes, I certainly have learned things from him. Since I have not been in classes by other instructors I can't really determine the quality of what I'm getting. That's the reason for my original question.

I don't know who you're taking your classes from, but I see a few red flags there that stand out to me, the biggest one being a cop teaching your classes.

I'm not suggesting a cop can't be a good teacher. 9 agencies arrange with me to use my club to conduct their quals and training. 7 are local townships, 1 is a federal agency, and the other is a state-wide agency.

The concerns I have with police officers training civilians are -

• the mission is entirely different, so I'm concerned about what you're getting for your legal justification briefing;
• police agencies are accustomed to teaching a very narrow range of the shooting public - meaning they aren't teaching the elderly, the infirm or people who might have some other sort of physical impairments;
• they are accustomed teaching on a very narrow range of shooting platforms - ie their agency uses Glocks, so they have very little experience teaching 1911's and Hi-Powers, or even revolvers for that matter these days;
• police officers and policing agencies are dinosaurs when it comes to finding out what advances in training is occurring and, more specifically, adopting it in their cirriculums. Until a methodology or new approach becomes adopted by one of the accrediting agencies, it isn't learned and disseminated to the departments. And that process takes along time to work through their bureaucracy. Training advances almost always originate in the private sector first.

This statement -

Since I have not been in classes by other instructors I can't really determine the quality of what I'm getting. That's the reason for my original question​

As much as you like your Officer friend, I'd challenge you to branch out. It DOESN'T have to be a resort-based school, like Thunder Ranch or Gunsite. Some folks have to go someplace away from home because they may not have a facility nearby that can host an intinerant trainer. Even in those instances I'd encourage the student to go visit the websites of trainers like Tom Givens, John Farnam, Insight's training, etc to see if they are visiting a town near you. It might save you the cost of air fare.


John Farnam pioneered the concept of the intinerant trainer, and his instruction is as good as anyone in the resort-based schools. The real value in going to the resort-based schools is reputation and the history of the institutonal knowledge the schools like Gunsite have retained over the years. It's like going to Mecca for the Muslim, or Jerusalem for the Jew and the Christian. You'll be going to where the modern technique of gunfighting originated, and that does have a value all it's own.


Unless you can appreciate that value, it won't be nearly as worth it for you as it is to someone who can.

 

[JoeSlomo]

The practitioner who has already begun walking the path to become well-trained won't be learning through drinking those huge gulps of information at the firehose anymore.

That's pretty much the same thought I was under the impression I conveyed with my post. Perhaps I am mistaken.

 

[shockwave]

I haven't gone to a shooting school yet, just IPDA and IPSC experience. For regular "real-world" practice, those programs are good training and everyone who carries a handgun should give those programs a shot just for fun.

But I have gone to martial arts seminars and what I can say is that when you leave your home and dedicate several days to combat training, your mindset changes in a big way. There's no substitute for it. You are there to be a student and have nothing else to do except learn and train. It allows a kind of focus you can't get otherwise. There are no downsides to obtaining expert instruction.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Unless you are a complete novice, you will never learn a HUGE amount from ANY instructor, however, you WILL learn something that makes you go "That's smart, I will incorporate that....".

You know, I will disagree with that. By the time I took Primary Pistol at Tac-Pro Shooting Center, I had already been to several formal classes at various other places - and these were good classes where I learned a lot; but I saw a tremendous improvement in my shooting in just three days and I was not a bad shooter by any means.

i certainly don't think it's bad to learn new training and techniques, but 99.9999...% of civilians will never have to fire a shot to save their life, and if they do, they're are generally robbed at point blank range anyway. (practicing quickly drawing and firing from a holster accurately and fast until it is intuitive is very important, which you can do on your own)

Again, I disagree. First of all, you are conflating two different skills - fighting and shooting. The two can be related; but they aren't necessarily the same thing. This is also something important to understand when choosing a school. Being able to shoot well and handle a weapon proficiently is only a tiny slice of the skills needed to fight with a weapon - and there are many instructors and schools that focus only on this aspect of training.

However, fighting with a firearm is a whole different ballgame. You need to already have a solid grasp on the basics or while you are going "Breathe, relax, aim, front sight, squeeze slowly to the rear" you are going to find that your target has disappeared and you aren't quite sure where it is.

ETA: To emphasize the shooting vs. fighting difference, let me tell an anecdote about my Force-on-Force Class at Tac-Pro. In order to even be in the class, everybody there had already had multiple, pistol classes representing lots of good instruction and rounds downrange. Many of the participants were regular competition shooters, I know we had at least one IPSC Grandmaster and two Masters there. So everybody there could not only run a pistol, they could run it well, for multiple shot strings, while moving. Several of them could do it so naturally that it came as easy as breathing. During one scenario, I watched participant after participant armed with a Glock simunitions pistol on a flat square range get "killed" by a guy wielding nothing but a yellow wiffle-ball bat. This is where the important differences come in between instruction on defensive use/fighting with a firearm and shooting.

Certainly people survive deadly confrontations without that training; but I don't think you'll find many of them going "I sure am glad I didn't waste any money on training!" after the fact.

 

[moxie]

Ditto. Tac-Pro is a first class operation.

 

[gym]

I guess it's worth it if that's what your into. Guys who are into racing cars go to schools like Bonderaurndt, Skip Barber, and Lime rock, it comes down to how into anything you want to get. I have a friend who was head driving instructor for Porsche, we both had Porsches, at the time. I wasn't as into it as he was. Same with anything. Most folks don't have the time, money or inclination, unless they are professionals or planning on being such to go that far into anything. I guess you can look at anything that way. At different times in one’s life different things take precedence. I don’t shoot enough anymore for those skills to be useful to me. I don’t practice enough either. Once at a younger age I did for 4 decades, but in your 60’s you aren’t going to benefit as much as when you were in your 20's, 30’s or 40’s. And what are you preparing for, Deployment, Ranger school, Special forces? Otherwise it's just a hobby like anything else, a hobby that could get you killed like flying, or scuba, racing cars, etc,or many others, but a hobby.

 

[BullfrogKen]

And what are you preparing for, Deployment, Ranger school, Special forces? Otherwise it's just a hobby like anything else, a hobby that could get you killed like flying, or scuba, racing cars, etc,or many others, but a hobby.

Just a hobby, is it?


Because I don't carry a gun out of a duty requirement doesn't mean I should view it without the seriousness and sobriety that comes with it.


Choosing to carry a gun throughout my day suggests if I need to use it to protect myself or someone I love, I will. It is not a magic talisman used to ward off evil merely by presenting it as one would a crucifix to Dracula.


I enjoy the training. I enjoy the people and the community. I take pleasure in the study.

But suggesting I look at it as a hobby makes light of the decision and the consequences of using it.

 

[gym]

Driving is a task, racing is a hobby, what don't you understand?

 

[BullfrogKen]

Apparently not very much.

 

[jl1966]

As to the question posed by the O.P., if I may. I would think it would depend on previous training. I had shot and been around guns all my life, killed a lot of game. Always figured I was plenty talented to defend myself. Then I shot an IDPA match, whoa, I was not near as good as I thought. So much I did not know. I decided along with some of my shooting buddies who were more experienced than I, to get some profesional training. Pat Goodale, owner and instructor athttp://www.pgpft.com, came highly recommended. I attended his handgun one class several years ago, we all agreed we recieved a wealth of knowledge for a small price. Check him out. I recently saw an ad for a fellow shooter who is offering self defense shooting classes at a local range. This guy is a better shooter than me, as far as scores at the local IDPA match goes anyway. I have heard him completely reject revolvers as a self defense gun. He has a lot of B.S. about him. I think he is ex-miltary, so I guess that is his credentials, I dont know. i would not doubt that I could learn something from him, but I would not pay for it. Try to find someone within traveling distance of you who has real credentials, and does this kind of thing for a living, not Joe Schmoe, who thinks he is a hot shot because he was in the army for a few years. Look for someone low key, not a blowhard trying to appear capable. If you talk to them, and they spend more time telling you what they think, than asking what you want to know, look elsewhere.

 

[GEM]

As someone who has crossed the 60's line, I would disagree that we can't benefit much from training. :banghead:

Also, Ken understands quite a bit and I was quite happy to engage in a high end training venue with him.

I shoot quite a bit better because I've had professional training - starting in my elderly 40's and continuing to my ancient 60's. While some aspects are enjoyable, I didn't do this just as a hobbyist. Perhaps, old guys do with skeet or Harleys - but not the training schools that teach the use of the gun in potentially lethal situations.

 

[shockwave]

For some people, I suppose shooting could be a hobby. For me, firearms training is part of the overall package of study that defines my martial arts system. My only interest in guns is in learning to use them as weapons.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

Not one bit. Not worth my price not my time.

 

[leadcounsel]

I went to Gryphon Group in Florida and it was awesome. Not strictly a shooting school. They also have defensive driving.

 

[Claude Clay]

Driving is a task, racing is a hobby, what don't you understand?

self-defense is a way of living, target shooting is a hobby, what don't you understand?

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

self-defense is a way of living, target shooting is a hobby, what don't you understand?

looks to me like gym's post is pretty self explanatory.....and well put.

 

[taliv]

looks to me like gym's post is pretty self explanatory.....and well put.

it explained his mindset. not much else, unless i missed something.


To the OP,
if you want to learn to shoot, compete
if you want to learn to fight, take classes

The big name classes I've been to have been well worth the money. The local classes have been hit and miss. Some OK, some not. Some are definitely better than others.

While I'm definitely not opposed to taking local classes, the way I see it is the big name classes are often a better value because in either case, you spend more in ammo than the tuition.

remember, practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent. at least expose yourself to a well-respected way of shooting before spending a lot of money practicing

also, having taken a particular big-name class several years in a row, I can attest to learning MUCH more the 2nd time I went over the exact same material. So I disagree with those who think you can't learn much in one class. Sometimes the light bulb doesn't come on the first time you try something

 

[mcdonl]

Well, I have read the thread and I guess it is like everything else gun related. To some of us, it is a fun hobby. I like to be safe and proficient, and to shoot. Shooting guns is fun.

To some people, it is a way of life.

Also, economics cannot be ignored. Some of you can afford to actually travel to take self defense classes. Some of us cannot.

OP, of course it is worth it. It is not the only way to learn to be safe and proficient but it is a good way none-the-less.