Hobby versus proficiency. Is there a conflict?

[Infidel4life11]

I shoot all the time every chance I get. I jump at the chance to fire anything and use new tactics. I don't believe there is a trade off, once basics are down they transfer from weapon to weapon. Last week I ran a carbine course with my gunsite scout, troops and cops couldn't believe it. If you shoot for fun it's fun, if you play for keeps be good at it. Not every shooter shoots an enemy or wants to. Not every shot is about the 10 ring. I'm just as happy training warriors as I am testing my "Minute Of beer Can" with my nephew.

 

[beatledog7]

I mostly like Sam's breakdown. For me, it's a little different:

Level 1 is when you can load and shoot the gun without causing any harm to person or property.
Level 2 is when your POA and POI are usually as close as most shooters and closer than many.

These two are relatively easy to achieve on your own for just about anyone who decides to do so and acts on that decision.

Level 3 is when you really know what you're doing with the gun and can employ it effectively and appropriately to handle various scenarios, hitting your target far more often than most shooters; i.e., you get it right.
Level 4 is when you can achieve Level 3 in your sleep or under intense stress; i.e., you can't get it wrong.

These two require a higher level of dedication, good coaching, and lots of practice. Level 4, to me, is the one that most shooters will find that they cannot maintain with more than one or two guns at a time.

What Sam called Level 4, I would term Level 5. It's where, even with diligent practice, most shooters will never be able to go, just like most opera-trained singers will never headline at the Met and most people who play quarterback will never start in the NFL.

 

[CraigC]

That is, it would seem that if you honed your skill at the range with just one handgun design, one rifle/carbine design and/or one shotgun design, you'd be a faster, more accurate shooter, and one that could take care of emergency procedures with the weapon more efficiently.

Correct.

I have little to add that has not already been covered in the excellent posts by David E and Sam1911. These men obviously know what they are about and most importantly, how to share what they can. Good job! One would be wise to take their posts to heart.

Until you have focused on building skill with one particular firearm, you have no idea what you are capable of. For some, just having fun at the range and being competent is "good enough". For others, we take our shooting seriously and strive to be as good as we can be. You simply cannot accomplish this if you take half a dozen or more guns to the range once a month and shoot them all a little. Some reach a point at which they're satisfied with their skill level. For others, there is always room for improvement.

Which is not to say that we do not shoot for fun. I wouldn't do it at all if it wasn't fun.

 

[Ankeny]

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.

I agree.

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.

Another accurate observation. I have also noticed a lot of non-competition based shooters define "mastery" as a performance level that would fall somewhere around "B" class. For that matter, a solid "B" class shooter has arrived...

 

[Nushif]

You'll find in the real world that someone who's trained enough on a Glock to be unconciously competent will not perform as well

I find it hard operating anything while unconscious. 8)

On a more serious note though, there is this tendency to say that "If you aren't as trained as me, you're not trained."

So obviously the more someone has trained the higher their standard of "proficiency." Why? Because the skills they've learned through whatever training, experience or whatnot is something they *now* consider essential. How many of you consider at least some physical training to be non-optional? How many of you consider some mechanical training to be non-optional? How many of you consider some computer training non-optional?

Let's face it, a professional elevator operator wouldn't consider mere button pushers like us even remotely competent because we can't fix key aspects of the elevator that fall under operator maintenance, like checking and repairing cabling. But then again ... not everyone is a professional elevator operator. And somehow we still manage making it to the 10th floor, while jugging a coffee, worrying about that TPS report, our kids, whether we turned off the oven and remembering where we parked our car.

 

[JohnBT]

"professional elevator operator"

I was thinking professional driver versus an experienced everyday driver with some basic training in skids, evasion, etc., but I like your example better.


I really like this statement...

"If you aren't as trained as me, you're not trained."


John

 

[mavracer]

And somehow we still manage making it to the 10th floor, while jugging a coffee, worrying about that TPS report, our kids, whether we turned off the oven and remembering where we parked our car.

This brings up a very real conundrum some of us have. I would love to train more, to be more proficient and be able to better protect my family. However if I go shooting much more than I do now, my wife would divorce me leaving no family to protect.

 

[Snag]

I was wondering how people feel about this apparent tradeoff. Is it in fact a tradeoff, or can many experienced shooters move from one weapon to the other, whether recently practiced or not, with no loss in effectiveness?

I don't think it's a tradeoff. If your a good shooter then your a good shooter. Of course there's a loss of familiarity when one moves to an new weapon but the underlying skill of the individual is still there.

 

[David E]

Instead of "training" more, perhaps you should consider "testing" yourself more. IE; shoot some matches, either USPSA or IDPA. Shortcomings will be revealed to you, either in skill or equipment, so you can address them next practice session.

 

[CraigC]

One thing you can do, whether your range time is limited or not, is to simply focus on one gun for six months to a year. Resist the urge to take a bunch of guns to the range. Just one. Or perhaps one platform, a centerfire and a rimfire version of the same gun is a good practice. Focus your range time on getting better, rather than just mindlessly shooting for fun.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of things you can do to improve your skill that can't be done at most public ranges. Like drawing from leather and point-shooting.

I don't think it's a tradeoff.

It's absolutely a trade-off. Mastery can only be achieved on a specific firearm or platform. One cannot spend a lifetime mastering the double action revolver or 1911, pick up a Glock for the first time and immediately shoot at the same level. Doesn't work like that, no matter the context.

 

[Snag]

One cannot spend a lifetime mastering the double action revolver or 1911, pick up a Glock for the first time and immediately shoot at the same level.

I totally agree. Like I said of course there's a loss of familiarity but wouldn't you say that someone who has mastered a 1911 could pick up a Glock and be much closer to mastering it that someone who hasn't mastered anything at all?

 

[mavracer]

Instead of "training" more, perhaps you should consider "testing" yourself more. IE; shoot some matches, either USPSA or IDPA. Shortcomings will be revealed to you, either in skill or equipment, so you can address them next practice session.

So your answer is to shoot more competition and less in practice?

One thing you can do, whether your range time is limited or not, ... Focus your range time on getting better, rather than just mindlessly shooting for fun.

Who is saying that they are not trying to get better with limited time?
BTW does this mean your getting rid of all your SAs since training for SD obviously would take a president over the mindless fun provided by them?

 

[David E]

It depends on how you define the parameters.

Could a master of the 1911 pick up a Glock and instantly outperform the hobbyist on a given course of fire? Yes.

Could he execute the drills as well as with his 1911? No, but he may well be the only one who could tell the difference.

I've not shot a 1911 for a few months, but I'm extremely confident I could pick one up and perform to a Master level with the first magazine. But then, I have 30+ years invested in the 1911 platform.

 

[Sam1911]

So your answer is to shoot more competition and less in practice?

That's not a bad idea. Some of the best competitors I know really shoot primarily in competition at this point. Their competition schedules are pretty full, of course, and they do spend a lot of time in dry-fire, but they say that they get a lot more out of shooting under pressure than they do trying to work up that intensity on their own time.

 

[David E]

So your answer is to shoot more competition and less in practice?

No, my suggestion was to test yourself more. If time or opportunity is limited, then consider shooting a match instead if practicing on your own. If you practice once a week now, consider shooting a match the first week, then practicing for the next 3 weeks. You would improve and learn a lot of things you never would otherwise. Your shooting schedule might morph into shooting matches for 3 weeks and practicing for one, which isn't a bad thing.

BTW does this mean your (sp) getting rid of all your SAs since training for SD obviously would take a president (sp) over the mindless fun provided by them?

I never said that and you know it.

 

[Jason_W]

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

And what's wrong with that?

 

[Sam1911]

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

And what's wrong with that?

Nothing, if that's what makes you happy.

But the question we're discussing in this thread is about developing proficiency, expertise, and/or mastery so plinking once a year on a cousin's farm has absolutely ZERO to do with that. Even basic levels of "competence" would be extremely difficult to obtain that way.

If we want to discuss fun ways to wile away a few lazy hours once in a blue moon, that's great -- and I have lots of ideas -- but that's a different thread.

 

[DAP90]

So your answer is to shoot more competition and less in practice?

This is my first year ever for shooting in a competition and I’d have to say I’ve progressed more in the last 15 weeks of competition than I ever would have just practicing by myself.

Now I’m around others who know what they are doing and I can watch, listen and interact with them. I’ve learned, am learning, to handle the pressure. My confidence grew as I did better throughout those 15 weeks. This translated to even better results and more confidence. Even when I did poorly it just pushed me to concentrate more, work harder, etc. Ego has its uses I guess.

I can’t even say my technique is that much better (it probably is) but for sure I’m more mentally in the game than ever before.

I can’t afford to do both competition and regular practice at the same time, and the costs are roughly the same week to week for both, so I might as well just do the competition.

Now, instead of looking to just go shooting I’m thinking to myself what other kinds of competitions can I do with the guns that I already have?

 

[Sam1911]

This is my first year ever for shooting in a competition and I’d have to say I’ve progressed more in the last 15 weeks of competition than I ever would have just practicing by myself.

Congratulations! It's incredible, isn't it?

And it points out the big disconnect between mindsets of shooters with different kinds of experiences. A few shooters tend to say, "I know how to shoot and I'm happy with the skills I have or that I can teach myself on my own." And, "those training and competition guys just think that no one can shoot who doesn't have their training or competition experience. No one's ever good enough, so why bother?"

A few other shooters will say, "When I started competing (or training, either one) I found out how much I didn't ever realize I didn't know, and discovered how much better I have the potential to be."

One is the view of the contented, or the defeatist, depending on how you look at it. Perfection is impossible, so why worry about "better" or "improvement?"

The other is the view of the eternal student who realizes that learning is a life-long journey that the farther you go along the path, the farther the path stretches ahead of you.

 

[mavracer]

That's not a bad idea. Some of the best competitors I know really shoot primarily in competition at this point. Their competition schedules are pretty full, of course, and they do spend a lot of time in dry-fire, but they say that they get a lot more out of shooting under pressure than they do trying to work up that intensity on their own time.

Of course along with the OP question. Now what kind of competition? Do you shoot IDPA only until you reach expert. This would leave rifles and shotguns out in the wind. Or would it be better to shoot a wide variety of shooting sports to be a well rounded shooter?
In IDPA my local club will allow you to shoot two different classes. who is better off the one who shoots every week with the same setup or somebody who rotates and shoots all 5 classes every month?

 

[JohnBT]

What does the published research say about how dedicated competitors fare in real life shoot-outs, robberies, etc.? I haven't looked yet and don't even know if there is any research to show cause and effect between the two.

John

 

[David E]

Of course along with the OP question. Now what kind of competition? Do you shoot IDPA only until you reach expert. This would leave rifles and shotguns out in the wind. Or would it be better to shoot a wide variety of shooting sports to be a well rounded shooter?

Some people keep putting up obstacles (some would call them excuses) in their way to keep from trying something new, so they can stay with what's already familiar. There is no need to totally disregard long guns while one pursues handgun skill. Of course, there's always 3-gun competition.

In IDPA my local club will allow you to shoot two different classes. who is better off the one who shoots every week with the same setup or somebody who rotates and shoots all 5 classes every month?

It depends what level they started at and/or what their goal is. Some guns are eligible for different divisions, so you can shoot the exact same gun twice.

If you keep one gun for home defense, but carry another, then one should consider shooting both.

 

[mavracer]

It depends what level they started at and/or what their goal is.

At what level will it make a difference if as you say. a poor shooter will be a poor shooter no matter what is in his hand and a grand master will awe the crowd with anything you put in their hand. I'm pretty sure I'm in the middle someplace and I wouldn't feel especially handicapped with any of my service guns.
I still believe the goal according to the OP would be, for a hobby shooter and collector who wants to be reasonably proficient with everything in his collection for SD even if he hadn't practiced with some of them reciently.

 

[Sam1911]

I still believe the goal according to the OP would be, for a hobby shooter and collector who wants to be reasonably proficient with everything in his collection for SD even if he hadn't practiced with some of them reciently.

But that was only one of the two models he gave for comparison. And his question was not restricted to one or the other:

I understand both of these perspectives, but wonder about whether they are in conflict. That is, it would seem that if you honed your skill at the range with just one handgun design, one rifle/carbine design and/or one shotgun design, you'd be a faster, more accurate shooter, and one that could take care of emergency procedures with the weapon more efficiently.

The clear and rather undisputable answer is YES. Those two goals are in conflict. It is to each shooter to decide how significant the drawbacks of either are, and whether they are willing to give up the benefits of one for the benefits of the other. And if so, to what degree?

 

[mavracer]

But that was only one of the two models he gave for comparison. And his question was not restricted to one or the other:

Well yes, but I figured it would really difficult-near impossible to shoot another platform if you only take one design to the range. So I figured it'd be wise to focus on the other.