CCW and "advanced" training

[Bezoar]

Basic CCW/CPL class "training" is learning the carry laws for your state, basics of gun handling... "this is ammunition, this is a gun, these cartridge things go in here.... and the final qualification test of putting a specified amount of bullets into a designated target.

But the advanced training is all based on police/swat style of training and that is THE problem with many anti gun groups. Why? well they begrudge us gun ownership aslong as we jump the necessary hoops for them, but they begrudge us our ccw classes as it proves we are "trustable" with a gun to put most of our bullets into a piece of paper at 30 feet or so.

But what gets them going the most from personal experience is that they dont like civilians with guns (that antis only want in LEO hands) can go get police/swat quality training in how to survive a shootout.


And thats anothing thing i dont really understand at all about the advanced training courses one can get. Why do most of these places tend to lump revolvers as worthless/merely back up ankle holsters for when the 15 round GLOCK runs out of ammo?

And why do these places seem to feel you should only carry a handgun SOB or on your waist band and the shooting hand side and AVOID cross draw and shoulder holsters?

 

[Hypnogator]

Why do most of these places tend to lump revolvers as worthless/merely back up ankle holsters for when the 15 round GLOCK runs out of ammo?

You've pretty much answered your own question. Most of the "advanced" courses are taught by law enforcement trainers, and their main client base is the law enforcement community. Since LEOs almost universally carry autos now, the training is oriented towards that segment. Perhaps some of the schools should consider having "sixgun" courses for those who don't consider self-stuffers to be the be-all and end-all of defensive weapons.

And why do these places seem to feel you should only carry a handgun SOB or on your waist band and the shooting hand side and AVOID cross draw and shoulder holsters?

Two reasons: Safety and Tactical Advantage. Live-fire courses, where multiple shooters are on the firing line, dread shooters who cross-draw, as their muzzles almost invariably sweep shooters to one side of them. From a tactical standpoint, cross-drawing in a hurry means having to hit your opponent as your weapon sweeps across him for about a foot and a half. Strong-side draw, and you shoot as your weapon sweeps upward, giving you six feet to hit your opponent. As for ankle holsters, IMHO, they are acceptable only in situations where you absolutely can't conceal a weapon in any other way.

 

[pax]

Not going to venture an opinion on the political questions, since you posted this in Strategies & Tactics. But your post shows a couple of (understandable) assumptions about advanced training that aren't necessarily true -- or don't tell the whole story.

But the advanced training is all based on police/swat style of training and ...

Actually, that's just flat not true anymore -- if in fact it ever was. Jeff Cooper's Gunsite was founded on the notion of civilian gun ownership and training for that. Not for SWAT cops (no such thing as SWAT back when that great-grandaddy of all shooting schools was founded). Not for military, although Cooper drew heavily on his military experiences and the police and military experiences of others.

The school I'm most familiar with, The Firearms Academy of Seattle (FAS), is owned by Marty and Gila Hayes. Both of them are certified police instructors, but the school is very definitely and deliberately geared to ordinary citizens who carry firearms.

There are schools with a more cop-like outlook, and schools with a more military-type outlook. That pretty much depends on the individual instructor. But most of the new breed of instructors have taken the lessons learned by high-risk professions, considered what would apply to ordinary citizens, tossed out the inapplicable stuff, and then taught their students only the parts that seemed to apply. (For example: police are required to intervene in some situations, and their training is geared toward that end. But most responsible instructors will discuss with their students whether or not to intervene, and will strongly encourage their students not to intervene if there is any other viable choice.)

And thats anothing thing i dont really understand at all about the advanced training courses one can get. Why do most of these places tend to lump revolvers as worthless/merely back up ankle holsters for when the 15 round GLOCK runs out of ammo?

Again, an assumption not necessarily borne out by facts. Many schools offer snubby-specific classes. There was a 'snubby summit' not too long ago with a lot of the prominent trainers in the industry giving seminars about small revolver use over a two or three day weekend.

FAS offers a one-day special interest seminar especially for small-frame revolvers, and their regular classes usually have at least a couple guys running revolvers. The class outlines are all revolver-neutral, meaning the strings of fire are 5 or 6 shots, giving revolvers a chance to keep up with the wondernines during the class.

And why do these places seem to feel you should only carry a handgun SOB or on your waist band and the shooting hand side and AVOID cross draw and shoulder holsters?

Actually ... this is a safety issue, NOT necessarily a "what you should carry" issue.

It is impossible for a right handed shooter to draw from a shoulder holster without sweeping the area behind him and immediately to his left. A class might allow ONE such shooter on the line, in the spot closest to the berm on the left. As soon as you add one more shoulder holster, you've got a safety problem and will need to run those shooters one at a time -- and the instructor cannot safely stand behind the student, most of the time.

Cross draw and ankle and small of back carry each have similar safety issues.

Many instructors will work one-on-one with folks who want to carry in these positions, however. Not hard to find such personalized training if you want to pay for it.

But asking the rest of the class to tolerate being swept, or to hold up the entire rest of the class while you run your drills by yourself after the class has run theirs, is really not doable on a practical level. The other folks in the class paid for instruction, after all -- not to stand around and watch one student use up all the time running solitary drills.

As a result, most schools require students to bring a safe, belt holster to classes -- and this has very little to do with approving or disapproving of students' carry choices.

pax

 

[BullfrogKen]

OK. #1 - Political discussion is off limits in S&T.

#2 - Every professional shooting class I took was either entirely comprised of armed citizens with no duty to act - i.e. not Peace Officers, or has only one or two Officers in attendance. That's pretty much the norm in every class by any school that wasn't contracted by a Department to come in and teach its Officers. The huge, overwhelming majority of Officers don't get training from professional schools.


You've levelled a criticism of professional training that needs to be substantiated. Have you actually taken any professional instruction, meaning instruction above and beyond a minimum state qual class, or is this your opinion of what goes on in a class?