Hobby versus proficiency. Is there a conflict?

[Rustle in the bushes]

darn good thread this, something Ive thought about myself. If I could I would have 1 long shotgun, 1 short barrel for that. As well, a .22 training rifle similiar to a centerfire rifle that would help develop those skills. I have 2 milsurp rifles that I am now selling because Ive become much more interested in honing the guns/skills that I have rather than shooting a bunch of stuff at the range.

 

[Jason_W]

I'm interested not so much in being a proficient shooter, but an efficient shooter.

 

[mavracer]

I think it partially depends on what you consider "proficient"........................................
What each one of these individuals considers "proficient" is undoubtedly very far from the others prospective.

I think you would need to say "proficient enough" as I think both groups would recognize two different levels of proficiency.

Another thought on switching platforms. Some platforms lend themselves to a much easier transfer of skills. As an example Glock is an easy platform to transfer to (this might have somthin to do with their popularity) a guy who competes with a 1911 could easily maintain proficiency with a Glock carry gun. I also find switching between a Kahr and a Snub revolver easy and seemless.

 

[Lex Luthier]

Proficiency is a goal. After bit of training and practice, your awareness of the big picture improves, you become not just comfortable, but confident.

Expertise is the reward of taking the time to improve knowledge and technique, and hopefully teaching others.

 

[David E]

There seem to be a lot of words being used to describe the same thing... or not the same thing. Let's see if we can clarify:

Proficient

- adjective
1.
well-advanced or competent in any art, science, or subject; skilled: a proficient swimmer.
- noun
2.
an expert.

Of course, this definition means little when it's comparative. I'd bet most folks on THR shoot better than most other gunowners, but most other gunowners don't shoot their guns much, if at all. This skews the perception on both sides.

 

[Sam1911]

Might as well define all the different levels one could attain. Something like:

1) Competence
2) Proficiency
3) Expertise
4) Mastery

Probably few of us here are struggling to achieve competency. (Well...maybe if someone hands you a Hakim...)

Many of us believe that proficiency with "guns" will be that magical "good 'nuff" if we ever need it.

Others feel that expertise, or even mastery is not just a laudible goal, but may be necessary to meet the challenge if and when it comes.

 

[Jason_W]

Some of us can't afford the time and money required for mastery. Shooting is not an inexpensive activity.

The best that is in reach for some of us is familiarity.

 

[Sam1911]

Some of us can't afford the time and money required for mastery. Shooting is not an inexpensive activity.

The best that is in reach for some of us is familiarity.

Ceartainly so, I cannot myself. At least not this year.

But that then leads to the next most obvious question -- if you know you cannot concentrate enough time and resources to master even one weapon, how then do you focus the time and resources you DO have?

 

[Jason_W]

But that then leads to the next most obvious question -- if you know you cannot concentrate enough time and resources to master even one weapon, how then do you focus the time and resources you DO have?

For me, I concentrate on long guns since it doesn't take as much regular practice to stay competent with a rifle or shotgun as it does for a handgun (at least for me).

I know I'm a good enough shot to hit a deer under most hunting conditions in my area.

As far as home defense, that's a matter of knowing the layout of my dwelling enough to get the drop on an intruder and making sure to the best of my ability that I'm not caught off guard.

There is also a certain amount of acceptance that I'm not a trained warrior type and there is a limit to the kinds of situations I can deal with. I may be able to deal with Methhead MaGee trying to break into my house, but if a crack team of highly trained assassins wanted me dead, I'd likely be screwed. Luckily, I'm a supremely unimportant individual so it's more likely I'll win the lottery than it is that I'll earn the ire of a professional hit squad.

 

[45_auto]

I see very few shooters (both on the range and at matches) who are even "consciously competent" (stage 3). It's a real pleasure to watch someone who's reached stage 4. The vast majority, even those who have been shooting many years, are somewhere within stages 1 and 2. Most don't have the stimulus to learn to move past stage 1. These are the ones who don't believe that they need any classes or instruction. They know that there's nothing to shooting a gun as long as the sights are on top and the trigger is on the bottom! The funny thing is that these people will usually classify themselves as at least stage 3 when it comes to shooting and self defense.

The Four Stages of Learning provides a model for learning. It suggests that individuals are initially unaware of how little they know, or unconscious of their incompetence. As they recognise their incompetence, they consciously acquire a skill, then consciously use that skill. Eventually, the skill can be done without consciously being thought through, and the individual is said to have unconscious competence.

The four stages

1) Unconscious incompetence

The individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognise their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage. The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.

2) Conscious incompetence

Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, he or she does recognize the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. The making of mistakes can be integral to the learning process at this stage.

3) Conscious competence

The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires concentration. It may be broken down into steps, and there is heavy conscious involvement in executing the new skill.

4) Unconscious competence

The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.

 

[mavracer]

What decision on what skill level one feels they're required to possess is an individule one, It's also one that one must live or die with. You pays your dollar and you roll the dice.
However re-read the OP no where does he ask what skill level is good enough or anything of the kind. He specificly ask's about switching between guns and maintaining effectiveness.
While I certainly see David's point about a guy who has shot targets with a T/C moving to a Smith 19, but switching to a Colt Python, GP100 or a Dan Wesson will likely have the same effect. If he has to look for the cylinder latch what difference would it make.
I wonder how bad it would mess Jerry Miculek up to reload a Python or Dan Wesson?
percentage wise who would be more affected?

 

[blarby]

I would believe that most THR folks are somewhere between 3 and 4 for most of their collection.

There is however a LARGE gap between 3 and 4.

We need a better grading scale......

 

[Jason_W]

Most don't have the stimulus to learn to move past stage 1.

Or time or money.

I would love to be able to enlist the services of a professional instructor and fire hundreds of practice rounds every week but the bottom line is that I have to make-do with the time and resources that are available to me.

Right now, just going to the range and back costs me a good $30.

 

[David E]

However re-read the OP no where does he ask what skill level is good enough or anything of the kind. He specificly ask's about switching between guns and maintaining effectiveness.

Ironically, the lesser skilled shooters will show the least difference between platforms. IE; they suck with everything.

Conversely, the highly skilled will notice a decrease, but they well may be the only person who can detect the difference.

 

[David E]

Or time or money.

I would love to be able to enlist the services of a professional instructor and fire hundreds of practice rounds every week but the bottom line is that I have to make-do with the time and resources that are available to me.

Right now, just going to the range and back costs me a good $30.

Two words:

1) dryfire

2) rimfire

You can make significant progress properly practicing five minute sessions of dryfire techniques 1-3 times a week.

 

[Sam1911]

I would believe that most THR folks are somewhere between 3 and 4 for most of their collection.

With the greatest humility and meaning no disrespect to anyone, I do not.

I see a LOT of shooters. Many of the shooters I see are regular competitors who spend more time with firearms than any sort of "average" shooter, participating in pursuits that rate their performances up against their fellows and which strongly encourages exertion and deliberate pursuit of improvement. I still would not say that most of THEM are somewhere between 3 and 4. A few will be solidly 3. A VERY few will be in the 4 category. (Which I am not claiming to be, myself, by a serious margin.)


To get a sense of what I mean by "Mastery:" When I was pretty new to practical pistol shooting, I watched a fellow who later became a regular acquaintance of mine win a regional "Sanctioned" IDPA match. He beat over 100 other shooters, overall. Not only did he have the fastest corrected time, in a match requiring about 120 shots, he was down THREE POINTS. Total.

I've shot matches with Jerry Miculek, Dave Sevigny, and other phenomenal masters who's names are a little less well known, and seeing in person what is possible casts the rest of the spectrum (including your own performance, believe me!) in a whole new, stark light.

I'd say the definitions maybe are something like this:

1) Competence -- safe with the gun and knows how to make it work.
2) Proficient -- Accurate with the gun. Able, with concentration, to perform most shooting drills and tests adequately.
3) Expert -- Knows how to RUN the gun. Unconsciously competent. Can execute a drill, course of fire, or apply a shooting solution without having to put mental and physical effort into the mechanics of what the gun is doing, leaving the mind and conscious effort free for strategy and decision-making.
4) Master -- ONE with the gun. Seeing and hitting are one and the same. The gun is an appendage of the body and the bullet is an extension of the will.

 

[Jason_W]

There seems to be an implication by many shooters - and perhaps it's unintentional - that if you don't train like a special ops agent and eat, breath, and sleep tactical shooting that you may as well sell all your guns and take up knitting.

I'm not all that old (31) and I remember growing up in rural Vermont that your worth as shooter was determined by how many deadfall apples you could burst with a .22 at 25 yards or how many red squirrels you could keep out of the eves.

Sometimes I wonder how many would-be recreational shooters are intimidated away from giving the whole thing a try by the presence of the vocal, hardcore tactical crowd.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against those who train their butts off in anticipation of the collapse of civilization, but is that really the only valid form of shooting?

 

[HOOfan_1]

I would believe that most THR folks are somewhere between 3 and 4 for most of their collection.

There is however a LARGE gap between 3 and 4.

We need a better grading scale......

Absolutely....level 4 is what you see on these "how it's made shows" with factory workers doing repetative tasks, which if most of us tried to do at their speed, we would at best ruin the product and at worst maim or kill ourselves.

If someone can pull the trigger and put bullets on target...they are at level 3.

There is a big gap between putting bullets on target and being able to do everything unconciously.

Edit: Sam1911's competency chart is much better..except I think there is a level below 1...someone who barely knows which end the bullet comes from.

 

[Sam1911]

There seems to be an implication by many shooters - and perhaps it's unintentional - that if you don't train like a special ops agent and eat, breath, and sleep tactical shooting that you may as well sell all your guns and take up knitting.

That may be so. I don't know if that relates directly to the question here though. If the question is to define proficiency (and other general "levels" of ability) and to determine if spreading your time and effort between several platforms helps or hurts that, compared to concentrating your efforts on one platform, then I guess I don't see how intimidating new recreational shooters enters into that question.

It would be something like unethical, or at least deluded, to say that we shouldn't attempt to achieve mastery, or discuss the persuit of excellence, because doing so might intimidate the uninitiated. The discussions and prowess of the expert (or master!) in any field is going to be a bit intimidating to the novice just entering that field. It is up to the novice to decide whether to step out on the path to mastery or to abandon the attempt because s/he can't measure up yet.

 

[45_auto]

I see a LOT of shooters. Many of the shooters I see are regular competitors who spend more time with firearms than any sort of "average" shooter, participating in pursuits that rate their performances up against their fellows and which strongly encourages exertion and deliberate pursuit of improvement. I still would not say that most of THEM are somewhere between 3 and 4. A few will be solidly 3. A VERY few will be in the 4 category. (Which I am not claiming to be, myself, by a serious margin.)

100% agreement here!

 

[David E]

There seems to be an implication by many shooters - and perhaps it's unintentional - that if you don't train like a special ops agent and eat, breath, and sleep tactical shooting that you may as well sell all your guns and take up knitting.

But implied by whom?

I've found that "adequate" shots dismiss those that have mastered their gun by saying "if someone bought ME 1000's of rds a week, _I_ would be that good, too!"

This absolves themselves of pursuing a higher skill level, which could be reached with proper instruction and 100 rds, but they never find that out.

Looking at USPSA classifications, (D, C, B, A, Master, Grand Master) I'd say that "C" class shooters are better shots than the average gunowner. This level is not difficult to reach, but it does require some effort.

 

[Jason_W]

I've found that "adequate" shots dismiss those that have mastered their gun by saying "if someone bought ME 1000's of rds a week, _I_ would be that good, too!"

Could be some like that. There probably more who don't particularly care and are happy to do their own thing. Probably a vast majority of shooters are at the range to make sure they're still good enough with their deer rifles to do what they need to do when the season starts.

I shoot when I can because I enjoy it. Nothing more or less.

I'm good enough with a long gun to take care of business in the woods within common hunting distances. I'm also good enough to bust up a line of water jugs at 25 yards with a shotgun full of slugs. Doing such things make me happy.

Now, I really have nothing against the competition shooter or the guy who practices several times a week. At least not until they cop a superior or dismissive attitude that is derisive of my approach to the activity.

 

[blarby]

I'd say the definitions maybe are something like this:

1) Competence -- safe with the gun and knows how to make it work.
2) Proficient -- Accurate with the gun. Able, with concentration, to perform most shooting drills and tests adequately.
3) Expert -- Knows how to RUN the gun. Unconsciously competent. Can execute a drill, course of fire, or apply a shooting solution without having to put mental and physical effort into the mechanics of what the gun is doing, leaving the mind and conscious effort free for strategy and decision-making.
4) Master -- ONE with the gun. Seeing and hitting are one and the same. The gun is an appendage of the body and the bullet is an extension of the will.

I like this very much.

Would could also add a " 0 " if we chose to.

Good stuff, Sam.

As I addressed, there was a LARGE gap between #3 and #4 on the previous scale...this helps eliminate some of that.

I guess most of the stuff I run personally would be in the #2 spot.

The only thing I reasonably believe I'm in a #3 spot in is a pump-action shotgun platform...mine personally being a mossy 500.

I really like your rating system........ unless anyone has some serious doubts, I think that tiering should be a sticky ! We could tweak in some actual quantifiable tests for each tier, if we so sought !

 

[Sniper66]

The basis for good shooting is hand-to-eye coordination. If you can shoot pool, a shotgun, archery, ping pong, tennis, or pistols, they all have something in common. So I would argue that shooting a variety of guns improves your efficiency with all of them, especially if you love it, shoot a lot, and work at it. My recent experience: I have a tremor I was born with, so I gravitated to shotguns and wing shooting. Never figured I could shoot a pistol because whenever I picked one up, my hands shake too much and the harder I try the worse it gets. But. it seemed to me, that if you shoot instinctively, as I learned to do with a shotgun, that you could do the same thing with a pistol. So, I burned up 100s of rounds at the range with my GSG 1911 and my Browning Buckmark. With both eyes open, I raise my gun with my right hand, grasping my wrist with my left, extending my arms and fire at the target...all in one smooth movement. I have repeated this movement 100s of times. I go to the range and shoot 100-150 rounds as often as I can. I shoot at a paper plate that is about 10-11 inches. My goal is to be consistent and hit the plate. I focus on the center, but the goal is not to make 1" groups...as good as that would be. Rather, the goal is comfort and consistency. I'm training my brain. The other day I was there and a lizard appeared on the dirt backstop behind the target. I walked out with my pistol by my side and repeated my movement 4-5 times as the lizard, 3" long and about the size of a pencil, scurried around looking for a place to hide. Did I hit him? No, but was very close each time and most importantly, I didn't think, I just repeated what has become almost automatic. I am going again today...gotta go buy some ammo for my hobby

 

[David E]

Probably a vast majority of shooters are at the range to make sure they're still good enough with their deer rifles to do what they need to do when the season starts.

Or shoot once a year at the cousins farm. This would be the "average gunowner" referenced previously.