How much training is the minimum? When is it too much?

[strambo]

RetiredUSNChief brought up some great questions at the demise of the "Why People Don't Go to Gun School Thread” and they were a drift to that topic anyway, but I think great questions to think about.

Assuming someone wants to get defensive firearms training, how much would be the minimum? Do you have to go to Gunsite for a week and $1200 tuition plus travel and ammo?

At what point do you get to diminishing returns?

There is no right answer to this, my personal opinion (assuming a person has no formal firearms training beyond basic or safety training) is that 2 full days is a reasonable minimum.

That will be about 16 hours and enough time to cover the basics of self defense law, review safety and basic loading/unloading, then really get into grip, stance, sight picture, trigger control, mag changes, basic movement, draw, multiple targets, low light, malfunctions.

You should get enough trigger time to learn the tasks and be able to perform them well while thinking about it. You'll have to practice at home (mostly dry-fire) to get them into unconscious competence.

I also would apply this to whatever firearm is your primary defensive one. If you don't have a CCW and a shotgun or carbine is you HD gun, then a 2 day course on that.

Costs should be about $100-$200/day tuition, 4-600 rds. ammo and perhaps a hotel and some gas. Almost everyone should have something w/in reasonable driving range. Total cost in the $600 to $1000 range.

I'm far from gun-centric, I also think a minimum amount of empty hand training is in order, but the average person or average defense-oriented gun owner is realistically not going to do that.

Diminishing returns?

I had a realization a few years ago that I was well past that point. Anymore training I do is just because I like it. Sure, more training is good, but once you can get good hits at combat speed and manipulate your weapon to unconscious competence while moving under stress...you are pretty well prepared. More training will make you better and better, but the main hurdle is all the stuff I just mentioned.

It took me a long time to also come to the realization that nobody is immune to violence no matter how highly trained you are. All human bodies break the same. It isn't Hollywood where the Tier 1, Deltasealcommando, takes it easy on all the minor henchmen for 80 minutes, then only goes all out at the end against the final villain that is a real challenge.

Sadly, we have lost many Tier 1 operators overseas in the war on terror to 2-bit insurgents who were not even in the same galaxy as them in terms of training, combat experience, and ability. The truth is, no matter how well trained and experienced we are, we can all be shot, struck, or blown up. We can all have lapses in attention/awareness and judgment. Anyone who thinks they are alert and "switched on" all the time is deceiving themselves and creating a dangerous blinder. I couldn't maintain perfect awareness in Baghdad as a contractor, I came pretty close when outside the wire, but we're all human.

If/when you find yourself in a life or death violent situation; you go all out until it is over. I don't care if you are the UFC heavyweight champ. You don't hold back because it is only 1; try to just "control" them, or some other silliness. If you go all out and drop them in 3 seconds, great. If you hit-stab-cut them once or just pull a gun out and they run...bonus!

If you hold back or play games, that can get you killed. It only takes an opening for an instant for them to injure you (could even be by mistake, ever seen how helpless a professional fighter is after an accidental finger in the eye?) Or, you are messing around trying to control someone or put them in a pain compliance hold and the partner you didn't see ends you.

Once you know you are in a violent situation, go all out, with everything you've got, until there is no longer a threat. That means, the threats have either physically ran away, are cowering on the ground in fear and submission and you have good distance on them, or their bodies are too broken for them to physically harm you.

Practice good awareness and avoidance skills to reduce the odds of the above happening to you in the first place.

 

[Al Thompson]

Assuming someone wants to get defensive firearms training, how much would be the minimum?

Interesting question. I'd probably focus more on task completion to a standard, than trying to hit a laundry list of tasks. IOW, I'd want a new shooter to be able to repeat and demonstrate the four rules, then load and unload their firearm, then move into stance, grip, sight alignment, etc., etc.

If you accept Claude Werner's analysis of civilian defensive use of firearms, it shows a pretty reasonable hierarchy of tasks to be prioritized, IMHO.

As to exact times, I'm pretty uncertain. I've been one on one with folks who were motivated and 4 hours on the range was more than enough. Obviously, the more students, the more time required.

 

[Mike1234567]

To many folks the $600-1000 cost is nearly impossible to overcome. Not long ago that would have been a fairly easy expenditure for me. After losing my very decent job due to illness... not anymore. I think too many of us are unaware of the "financial realities" of others.

 

[strambo]

Good post Al. I'm specifically talking about training for a gunfight and assume the individual has safety and the bare-bone basics down already. So, they know the 4 rules and can demonstrate on demand safely loading, firing, and unloading.

My military background is definitely in agreement with the task to standard approach. I've seen students get pushed too far. There is a fine line between pushing outside comfort zone to improve vs. pushing too far and nothing is learned to standard. Farther still and safety becomes an issue.

With any new endeavor there is going to be some of the "fire-hose" effect with a certain amount being retained vs. not. Hard part is finding the balance. That is why I pulled 2 days randomly out of my hind quarters as a starter, hopefully that is enough time to get a decent number of skills down decently well.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I general consider the following to be the core competencies involved in carrying a gun for self defense:

• You will want to know and understand the legal issues -- when the use of lethal force would be legally justified, when it would not be, and how to tell the difference. You will want to understand how to handle the legal aftermath of a violent encounter and how to articulate why, in a particular situation, you decided to take whatever action you did.
  
  
• You will want to know about levels of alertness and mental preparedness to take action. You will want to understand how to assess situations and make difficult decisions quickly under stress. You will want to know about the various stress induced physiological and psychological effects that you might face during and after a violent encounter.
  
  
• You will want to develop good practical proficiency with your gun. That includes practical marksmanship, i. e., being able to deploy your gun and get good hits quickly at various distances. It also includes skills such as moving and shooting, use of cover and concealment, reloading quickly, clearing malfunctions, and moving safely with a loaded gun.

As to how much training one needs to reach an appropriate level of knowledge ans skill, I don't think that there's any way to know. To some extent each of us will need to decide when he is sufficiently satisfied with what he knows and what he can do.

However, I strongly suspect that no one who has survived a crisis or emergency or violent encounter wishes that he knew less or were less proficient.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Al Thompson: ...I'd want a new shooter to be able to repeat and demonstrate the four rules, then load and unload their firearm, then move into stance, grip, sight alignment, etc., etc.

Yes, and after that, I would add the ability to draw, grip, stand, align the sights, and control the trigger rapidly enough to handle the realities of a fast moving violent criminal actor attacking by surprise--think Tueller; the use of cover and concealment; and clearing malfunctions.

I cannot put a time estimate on that...I do not instruct, and I should think it would vary a lot.

For the many people who cannot put in a lot of time away from home, I think some one-on-one instruction with a timer and a video camera, followed by a lot of Airsoft practice, might be in order.

The above addresses only the third item in Frank's post. The other two are also critical.

For the first, I really believe that attending MAG-20 represents a better use of time and money than buying another firearm to be put in the safe. Not everyone can fit it in easily, but when one considers the stakes and the cost of only a few billable hours of an attorney's time, the cost is properly put in perspective.

 

[Al Thompson]

To many folks the $600-1000 cost is nearly impossible to overcome.

I think that particular train has left the station. Or in other words, competent local training seems to be increasing in my state and cost is getting pretty reasonable. I'm aware of at least three good trainers who are with in 100 miles and who have good credentials.

YMMV.

 

[Mike1234567]

I think that particular train has left the station. Or in other words, competent local training seems to be increasing in my state and cost is getting pretty reasonable. I'm aware of at least three good trainers who are with in 100 miles and who have good credentials.

YMMV.

Al...

The OP quoted: "Costs should be about $100-$200/day tuition, 4-600 rds. ammo and perhaps a hotel and some gas. Almost everyone should have something w/in reasonable driving range. Total cost in the $600 to $1000 range."

Other threads here state even higher costs... to thousands of dollars over a period of months to tens of thousands over several years. I'm sure you remember those as they are quite recent.

And... what is "local" to some is not local to many others. Even if within 100 miles, that's a lot of fuel and/or hotel costs.

 

[Al Thompson]

Completely agree that things will vary with location, but.

I don't accept the "all or nothing" argument that some post. It all goes back to what Strambo asked, what's a minimal time (or task) frame for someone to get good enough to save their life? IMHO, it's not necessary to take that week long course and that perhaps with a good local instructor, that elephant can be eaten a bite at a time at a reasonable (total) price.

 

[Mike1234567]

Al... what is "all or nothing", precisely? If it means we can't afford $600-1000 for training then that means "nothing" (no training). Those of us without the spare $600-1000 to spare are what? Some folks can't seem to accept the reality of some others' financial limits? I do my best to train but I just don't have the funds to spend on it. I REALLY DON'T.

EDIT: A bite from an elephant can only be so small. Even a $600 bite is next to impossible for some folks.

 

[Frank Ettin]

To many folks the $600-1000 cost is nearly impossible to overcome. ...I think too many of us are unaware of the "financial realities" of others.

I think many of us understand the financial realities faced by others; and although I'm comfortable now, I can still remember when eating and paying my rent were real problems for me. But to be blunt, in many ways a lack of money is beside the point.

If training is good, important, useful and beneficial, it doesn't stop being good, important, useful and beneficial because someone can't afford it. Penury is unfortunately a barrier to some people being able to benefit from the knowledge and skills available through training. That might be sad; but penury is a barrier, and not a substitute for the knowledge or skills. I might have good reason for not knowing or not being able to do certain things; but no matter how good my reasons, I still don't know or can't do those things.

 

[Hangingrock]

As a standard reference define competent training. What is the definition of and included in a course outline of competent training? People talk in general terms but the devil is always in the details.

 

[Mike1234567]

I think many of us understand the financial realities faced by others; and although I'm comfortable now, I can still remember when eating and paying my rent were real problems for me. But to be blunt, in many ways a lack of money is beside the point.

If training is good, important, useful and beneficial, it doesn't stop being good, important, useful and beneficial because someone can't afford it. Penury is unfortunately a barrier to some people being able to benefit from the knowledge and skills available through training. That might be sad; but penury is a barrier, and not a substitute for the knowledge or skills. I might have good reason for not knowing or not being able to do certain things; but no matter how good my reasons, I still don't know or can't do those things.

What you stated is essentially my point... we don't have to spend thousands of dollars that we don't have to train to a degree. We won't be as good as those who could afford professional training but we'll "get by".

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mike1234567: We won't be as good as those who could afford professional training but we'll "get by".

That remains to be seen.

We may, or we may not.

 

[strambo]

Mike,

This thread isn't about what training costs or if it is worth it, that was the other thread. I will say this though (all rhetorical, no answer needed), why didn't you get training when you could afford it?

Better question; in the next few years when cost isn't a factor anymore will you actually get training? If you don't, then cost was never a factor.

I don't personally have that much sympathy for the cost excuse primarily because I have been burned many times before. The truth is most people (like 99.999% of the population) truly don't care about self defense training, at all. That's totally cool.

However, inevitably, acquaintances find out I have gobs of it and express interest. Inevitably, I agree to meet with them and give them top notch training for free. Inevitably, they start to flake out really quick. I get angry because they wasted my time and have no respect for the time I am spending away from my family or other interests. Cost was never the real issue. They just don't place any real value on training, even if it is very good, local, and free (actually, psychologically, the free and local is why it has no perceived value to them, they have no experience base to judge the quality.)

I don't offer to train people for free anymore. If they express interest and they want to tag along on an already planned shooting trip of mine, and if they show up, I'll gladly turn my personal training session instead into a personal lesson for them, I really enjoy helping others better protect themselves.

If cost is truly, deep down, the only reason why not, then that will be a temporary state for the vast majority of people. The real reason, like anything in life, for the vast majority is that it just isn't actually a priority.

Edit: Buy a good quality training DVD set used on Ebay. Devote yourself to watching it, understanding it, and dry-fire practice it (live fire as you are able). I did this, and still do this, in between my few and far between live training course. It isn't as good as live training...but is far, far better than practicing on your own. The DVD instructor is the trainer, but it takes good self discipline and self-awareness to practice it well. Also a very inexpensive way to learn and explore new training techniques, methods and instructors once you have a good foundation.

If anyone truly wants to vastly improve their abilities, there really isn't a valid reason why not. Something low cost and effective can be done...but anything will take a true dedication to it and that is what is really lacking in almost every case.

 

[Mike1234567]

That remains to be seen.

We may, or we may not.

Some of us truly have no other choice... that's just life... take it or leave it.

 

[Al Thompson]

Al... what is "all or nothing", precisely?

I'm sorry, was trying to keep numbers out of the discussion. While I may not be able to afford the best training, then perhaps I can afford adequate training that is still in excess of what comes in the box with a new gun.

Example:

I'm contemplating attending Tom Given's course in Florence SC next month. Tuition is $425, ammo is about $350, gas, eats and over night lodging is about $100.

Total of $875. Got it.

Guy in Greenville SC has a one day course for about $150 tuition, $80 for ammo, $30 for gas.

Is it as good as Tom's class? Probably not, but I'm confident that Robbie's class will be adequate and.......

That total cost of $260 is a lot more palatable than $875. Eating that elephant just got down to the cost of a High-Point and a tank of gas.

 

[Mike1234567]

Mike,

This thread isn't about what training costs or if it is worth it, that was the other thread. I will say this though (all rhetorical, no answer needed), why didn't you get training when you could afford it?

Better question; in the next few years when cost isn't a factor anymore will you actually get training? If you don't, then cost was never a factor.

I don't personally have that much sympathy for the cost excuse primarily because I have been burned many times before. The truth is most people (like 99.999% of the population) truly don't care about self defense training, at all. That's totally cool.

However, inevitably, acquaintances find out I have gobs of it and express interest. Inevitably, I agree to meet with them and give them top notch training for free. Inevitably, they start to flake out really quick. I get angry because they wasted my time and have no respect for the time I am spending away from my family or other interests. Cost was never the real issue. They just don't place any real value on training, even if it is very good, local, and free (actually, psychologically, the free and local is why it has no perceived value to them, they have no experience base to judge the quality.)

I don't offer to train people for free anymore. If they express interest and they want to tag along on an already planned shooting trip of mine, and if they show up, I'll gladly turn my personal training session instead into a personal lesson for them, I really enjoy helping others better protect themselves.

If cost is truly, deep down, the only reason why not, then that will be a temporary state for the vast majority of people. The real reason, like anything in life, for the vast majority is that it just isn't actually a priority.

Bolded: Because 15 years ago, when cost wasn't a factor, I didn't think I needed training. After that I cared for an elderly parent so I couldn't leave other than for work... and even then had to stay home much of the time. Now, I'm ill and have no money.

Accuse all you want. I don't care anymore. I can't convince you and you can't convince me. You don't care... I don't care.

 

[Al Thompson]

OK, so let's get back to the question. If the minimal amount of training time wise is elusive, then what about standards?

Biggest error I see is not introducing a time limit for new shooters early in the process. Being able to shoot a nice tight group slowly is nice, but I'll accept a bigger (though to standards) group shot faster.

Thoughts?

 

[strambo]

Deleted-roger, let's get back on track.

On the standards aspect, I'll post my favorite LE firearms qualification standard of all time. From the ready position, place one round on a 5x10 inch target in 5 yds in less than 1.5 seconds.

That's it. This demonstrates you have the raw marksmanship and hand/eye coordinating to hit a realistic target on demand. All other time and ammo should be spent on learning how to fight with your gun.

Taken from the outstanding book "Training At The Speed Of Life" by Kenneth R. Murray.

Personally; My one shot qual for a civilian would be draw from concealment while side-stepping, hit 8x10 vital zone on a clothed 3d target at 5 yds, speed reload, scan, re-holster. First shot in either 1.75 or 2s, but I would need to do some trial and error research for the right par time.

This would demonstrate that (not under stress) they can get it out, while moving, hit a realistic target where they can't see the vitals and perform basic gun manipulation in a compressed time on demand. All other time and ammo used to practice gunfighting, not marksmanship. Of course, we have to train them to this level first. (Almost anyone should be able to do that after a 2 day course )

The ultimate proof of training would be high stress FoF with airsoft or simunitions.

 

[Frank Ettin]

As a standard reference define competent training. What is the definition of and included in a course outline of competent training? People talk in general terms but the devil is always in the details.

First, does the lack of some independent supervisory body setting an objective performance standard necessarily negate the value of training.

In a sense, there are many measurements depending on the situtation.

• Massad Ayoob in his MAG-40 class runs a qualification at the end -- specifically:
  
  
  • 6 rounds weak hand only at 4 yards
  • 6 rounds strong hand only at 4 yards
  • 12 rounds (6 rounds then reload) free style at 7 yards
  • 18 rounds (6 rounds from a squatting position, 6 rounds from high kneeling and 6 rounds from low kneeling) at 10 yards
  • 18 rounds (6 rounds Weaver, 6 rounds Chapman, 6 rounds Isosceles) at 15 yards
    
    
  • The standard IPSC target is used with major scoring (5 points for A zone, 4 for C and 3 for D). Magazines are loaded with 6 rounds, so a reload was required after each 6 rounds. All reloads were "on the clock" except between the weak hand and strong hand strings. While every stage had a time limit, it was generous. Possible is 300, and passing is 225.
  
  
• For Intermediate Handgun (350) at Gunsite we were evaluated in a number of ways --
  
  
  • We shot what Gunsite refers to as school drills for score.
    
    The school drills are as follows:
    
    
    • 3 yards, single shot to the brain stem, 1.5 seconds with movement (a step to the left or to the right), performed twice
      
    • 7 yards, two rounds to center of mass, 1.5 seconds with movement (a step to the left or to the right), performed once
      
    • 10 yards, two rounds to center of mass, 2 seconds with movement (a step to the left or to the right), performed once
      
    • 25 yards, two rounds to center of mass, 3.5 seconds with movement (a step then kneeling), performed once
      
    • 35 yards, two rounds to center of mass, 7 seconds with movement (a step then dropping to rollover prone), performed once
    
    
  • We shot what Gunsite calls a Tactical El Presidente (facing up range, with a loaded and holstered weapon, from three targets at a distance of 10 yards, then turning and drawing on a signal to engage two targets with one round each, the third target with two rounds, and then re-engage the first two targets with one more round each) for time and score. Par time is 5 seconds.
    
    
  • We went through a man-on-man shoot-off. Two shooters would each face an array of two falling plates, a small popper and a split popper. The split popper was arranged so that the winner’s half would be at the bottom. The target array was engaged on the command to fire, with the split popper being engaged only after each shooter had dropped his other targets; and each shooter was required to perform a reload immediately before engaging his half of the split popper.
    
    
  • And the instructors critiqued our performance on various other exercises, include our simulator runs.
  
  
• Other schools and other classes might use other more or less formal means of evaluation.
  
  
• And one benefit of taking classes (and competing) is that one does get a chance to actually see and measure in some way how he performs -- either in comparison to others or in the assessment of an instructor.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Thanks for crediting me for some of this, strambo!

On the subject of minimum training, I think Frank Ettin in post #5 pretty good.

And I'd like to make a separate distinction with respect to this subject, if I may. Specifically that when I speak of "minimum training", I'm absolutely NOT implying it as a term in any way, shape, or form as a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms. Such a restriction is unwarranted, in my opinion, because as soon as we start placing conditions such as that on the RKBA we move it away from a "right" and into a "privilege".

Rather, I'd like to speak of such "minimum training" in the same fashion that Frank did...as something to develop a basic set of core competencies for the benefit and well being of the person who chooses to carry a firearm for personal protection. Or who chooses to own a firearm at all, for that matter.


There are a whole host of areas with respect to carrying a firearm which require knowledge, experience, and practice in order to develop some level of basic proficiency. But, just based on what I've seen here on THR, some of the most important ones are as follows:

LEGAL: For a gun-related forum, just the THR community alone has displayed several examples of people who are (sadly) lacking in basic, practical understanding of what the laws actually say as well as what those laws actually mean. And I'm speaking, of course, on what the various federal and state statutes say with respect to firearm ownership, carrying firearms, and what the laws say about deadly force and when it's justified. One can only imagine what those outside of a dedicated forum such as this thinks and believes about these laws.

SAFETY AND BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF FIREARMS: Most of us here are very comfortable with handling, operating, breaking down, and cleaning firearms. And most of us here are well grounded on the basics in safety. But many are not, and I'm not just speaking about newbies, either. I've known several people in my life time who were not newbies, but who have not a whit of understanding about how to even break down their own guns for cleaning, much less the common sense not to point a gun at someone while handling it.

GUNS AREN'T THE ONLY SOLUTION: There's an old saying that if all you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail. Having a gun is only a single tool in the toolbox of survival, when it comes to self-defense. There's a whole host of other things to learn about and practice and people need to learn it and live it.

GET PROFICIENT: What constitutes "proficient" varies from person to person for a variety of very good reasons. For the purpose of minimal training, however, I will define "proficient" with one's firearm to include at least the following: Understanding and properly utilizing all the features of the gun, be able to load and unload the gun, be able to shoot the gun and hit a man-sized target at some distance, be able to break down/clean/reassemble the gun, and do all this while practicing the 4 rules religiously. But more than just being able to do this, I mean to be able to do this with a level of confidence in one's own abilities, without discomfort or fear for what they are doing.


These are very BASIC things which establish a solid foundation upon which to build upon.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

On the flip side...that of answering the question "At what point does one hit the point of diminishing returns?" there is also quite a bit of subjective opinion.

For some, it's all about reaching the point of diminishing returns and continuing, whether it's about trying to reach a specific goal such as some competition record, or whether it's because they're OCD about learning more on the subject, or whether it's just a continuing hobby, like strambo pointed out.

For others, it might be a matter of finances. Or loss of interest. Or time. Or ego. Or fear. Or any number of other things.

My opinion on this matter approaches this from a couple angles:

1. Practical, objective, and quantifiable requirements. By this, I mean there are specific requirements on what is necessary in terms of training and proficiencies. Law enforcement and military have such quantifiable requirements. So do security firms that provide various services. I'm sure people could come up with plenty of other examples.

Those quantifiable limits can be said to be the minimum standards, in most cases. However, further training beyond those may actually be conducive to better job opportunities, better pay, better placements, and so forth. Once the additional training meets those goals...anything more may rapidly become the "point of diminishing returns".

2. Subjective requirements. By this, I mean what arbitrary requirements or goals a person has, based upon whatever criteria. These may or may not be as rigorous as those I mentioned above, and may certainly be more rigorous. However, how far to go is based more upon what drives the individual personally than what other external forces or requirements may be out there.

This is probably the part where most controversy comes about.


Minimum requirements are easily established as criteria for certain jobs or roles. However, they are NOT so easily established when it's concerning the right of the individual private citizen to keep and bear arms because that, by definition, starts becoming an infringement.

The point of diminishing returns is defined by the minimum requirements combined with the personal drive and interests of the individual.


Regardless, the best way to approach either of these is with an open mind and an understanding that there is always more to learn and always room for improvement.

 

[hartcreek]

The drills that Frank Ettin lists are good but where it really hits the fan is force on force. I need more of that. I have been punching holes in paper from different positions since I was twelve and gave up competitive rifle shooting because it was too easy as I had my sharphooter badge when I was 14.

What really hones you is when you are out there with your weapon and someone is trying to get you. Until you go through this in a class you will not know what you are made of. There is a new range starting up in my area and I plan on taking a force on force class from them.

I have had to go though it the hard way when bow hunting I had some undesireables trying to hunt me down that gets you sharp quick.

 

[tomrkba]

I am on 20+ handgun and rifle courses so far and I learn lots every time. I have taken FPF Training's "Advanced Concealed Carry Tactics" multiple times and as recently as last November. I took a stock SIG P220, a gun I have not trained with in twelve years. I was able to get four inch groups at 25 yards with both DA and SA, but had lots of trouble with trigger slapping during rapid fire. It required quite a bit of discipline to get under control when shooting against the timer. I learned quite a bit about that gun and trigger control in particular.

I focus upon tactics, shooting fundamentals and teaching techniques. Tactics may always be improved and a serious student goes to different trainers to see different perspectives. Shooting fundamentals always apply and mastery is a matter of degree. The most valuable part of any class is watching the instructor correct student mistakes. I try to soak up as many teaching tips as possible since I never know what my friends will need assistance with.

You do not need to go to expensive courses. I recently attended a revolver course that was still under development with an unknown instructor. There were quite a few hiccups, but the shooting and reloading instruction was really good. He was able to correct my speed shooting technique. Look around for local guys and give them a fair shake. At worst, you can use it as a vehicle to test a new gun and gear. You will pick up little tricks here and there that will make subtle differences in your tactics, shooting and teaching.

Is that worth it? I think so.