How much training is the minimum? When is it too much?
- Thread starter strambo
- Start date
- Status
Trunk Monkey
member
This conversation is already way over my head so I’m going to keep my comments brief.
I am one of those who really couldn’t afford training if I had to pay for it. Fortunately, the church I attend affords members of the church security team the opportunity to get professional training locally at the church’s expense.
I’ve been able to participate in 4, 4 to 6 hour training classes over the last 6 months and if nothing else they’ve taught me how much I don’t know. I’ve also noted a marked improvement in my marksmanship and my confidence level.
I don’t know how to list what skills have been covered because the instructors are very good about turning everything into a lesson. I can tell you we started (dry) with basic skills such as presenting from concealment, reholstering with a concealment garment, reloading and reloading while retaining the empty magazine. And (dry) firing from retention.
Then we worked those skills live firing, then we added in firing while moving and firing around an obstacle and how to approach an obstacle, such as a door way, without exposing yourself to incoming fire. The instructors have stated that they are going to keep adding things to the classes such as moving as a team as we go.
I know that many here would consider the training I’ve received to be very minimal and I know it is but it’s light years ahead of what I had.
I am one of those who really couldn’t afford training if I had to pay for it. Fortunately, the church I attend affords members of the church security team the opportunity to get professional training locally at the church’s expense.
I’ve been able to participate in 4, 4 to 6 hour training classes over the last 6 months and if nothing else they’ve taught me how much I don’t know. I’ve also noted a marked improvement in my marksmanship and my confidence level.
I don’t know how to list what skills have been covered because the instructors are very good about turning everything into a lesson. I can tell you we started (dry) with basic skills such as presenting from concealment, reholstering with a concealment garment, reloading and reloading while retaining the empty magazine. And (dry) firing from retention.
Then we worked those skills live firing, then we added in firing while moving and firing around an obstacle and how to approach an obstacle, such as a door way, without exposing yourself to incoming fire. The instructors have stated that they are going to keep adding things to the classes such as moving as a team as we go.
I know that many here would consider the training I’ve received to be very minimal and I know it is but it’s light years ahead of what I had.
Trunk Monkey
member
TomRKBA said:
I don't consider any one in America to be truly poor but there are some members here for whom 25 bucks a week would mean some other necessary bill ( I'm not talking about cable) wouldn't get paid
OK, I'm gonna take a stab at the how much is enough or too much question..the answer is kinda esoteric though.
The answer to how much training is enough (IMHO), is when your skill level is such that should you find yourself in the most dangerous situation you are likely to encounter, more training wouldn't give you better odds of survival. In other words, if you get killed, there was nothing you could have done differently with more training.
Of course we can never truly know what that is, like driving a car. Your car has a very defined performance envelope at any given moment defined by the vehicle, tires, and road conditions. You can't know it exactly, but if you exceed it you'll spin out of control.
Let’s just look at home defense and skip physical security measures (whatever they are, the bad guys still got in). So, evaluate the realistic threat level and the realistic "most dangerous" enemy course of action. A highly trained militia group raiding your home with flash-bangs and night vision at 0400 is not realistic.
However, I'd posit that multiple armed criminals kicking in your door intent on beating, raping, then stealing your stuff (and not just running at the sight of a gun) is realistic "most dangerous" threat. We have seen this happen multiple times from the ghetto to very high end homes in high profile cases. Odds...miniscule, but we aren't looking at odds of it happening, just the possibility.
How much training do you need to handle multiple armed threats in your house, such that if they kill you, more training wouldn't have mattered?
I'd say you need enough training to get to an unconscious level of competence in hitting the vitals in low light while you (and they) are moving, 10yds and under, and fast under stress. You need to be able to transition to multiple targets. You need to have trained to shoot until the threat is eliminated, not shoot 2 and assess.
You need to have enough H2H training that you will not hesitate to close and strike if your gun is empty or jams (clearing a malfunction or reloading is a recipe for disaster at room-distance.) Your strikes need to cause injuries, feel free to use the firearm to strike. You must train to seamlessly transition from shooting to striking with the firearm. As an aside, a muzzle punch to the throat or sternum with a carbine, shotgun or handgun will be lethal (very, very high probability) with your body weight behind it…even if you just weigh 100 lbs.
You need to know how to use light and cover. You need to know how to search a structure if you have no choice and have to go after a family member (if you live alone, I guess you don’t). You need to know basic immediate trauma aid, lest you all survive the gunfight only to have someone die when immediate trauma first aid training would have saved them.
I’m forming my thoughts a lot as I type. I guess there is a pretty big gulf between a reasonable “minimum” and getting to the level where more training wouldn’t matter even in the realistic worse-case.
I also just realized, I do probably have enough formal training to handle the worse case where more wouldn’t matter. However, I don’t practice all of those skills enough, so there is room for me to get killed due to not executing what I know well enough. That I need to have the self-discipline to fix…I can do it almost all for free via dry-fire.
Edit: I lied, I could definitely use more force on force training to stress inoculate the skills I have.
The answer to how much training is enough (IMHO), is when your skill level is such that should you find yourself in the most dangerous situation you are likely to encounter, more training wouldn't give you better odds of survival. In other words, if you get killed, there was nothing you could have done differently with more training.
Of course we can never truly know what that is, like driving a car. Your car has a very defined performance envelope at any given moment defined by the vehicle, tires, and road conditions. You can't know it exactly, but if you exceed it you'll spin out of control.
Let’s just look at home defense and skip physical security measures (whatever they are, the bad guys still got in). So, evaluate the realistic threat level and the realistic "most dangerous" enemy course of action. A highly trained militia group raiding your home with flash-bangs and night vision at 0400 is not realistic.
However, I'd posit that multiple armed criminals kicking in your door intent on beating, raping, then stealing your stuff (and not just running at the sight of a gun) is realistic "most dangerous" threat. We have seen this happen multiple times from the ghetto to very high end homes in high profile cases. Odds...miniscule, but we aren't looking at odds of it happening, just the possibility.
How much training do you need to handle multiple armed threats in your house, such that if they kill you, more training wouldn't have mattered?
I'd say you need enough training to get to an unconscious level of competence in hitting the vitals in low light while you (and they) are moving, 10yds and under, and fast under stress. You need to be able to transition to multiple targets. You need to have trained to shoot until the threat is eliminated, not shoot 2 and assess.
You need to have enough H2H training that you will not hesitate to close and strike if your gun is empty or jams (clearing a malfunction or reloading is a recipe for disaster at room-distance.) Your strikes need to cause injuries, feel free to use the firearm to strike. You must train to seamlessly transition from shooting to striking with the firearm. As an aside, a muzzle punch to the throat or sternum with a carbine, shotgun or handgun will be lethal (very, very high probability) with your body weight behind it…even if you just weigh 100 lbs.
You need to know how to use light and cover. You need to know how to search a structure if you have no choice and have to go after a family member (if you live alone, I guess you don’t). You need to know basic immediate trauma aid, lest you all survive the gunfight only to have someone die when immediate trauma first aid training would have saved them.
I’m forming my thoughts a lot as I type. I guess there is a pretty big gulf between a reasonable “minimum” and getting to the level where more training wouldn’t matter even in the realistic worse-case.
I also just realized, I do probably have enough formal training to handle the worse case where more wouldn’t matter. However, I don’t practice all of those skills enough, so there is room for me to get killed due to not executing what I know well enough. That I need to have the self-discipline to fix…I can do it almost all for free via dry-fire.
Edit: I lied, I could definitely use more force on force training to stress inoculate the skills I have.
Last edited:
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
OK, quick Moderator note. 
Strambo's the OP and the original question is about training duration, not dollars. Let's just not go there, as ketchup is cheap.
Strambo's the OP and the original question is about training duration, not dollars. Let's just not go there, as ketchup is cheap.
I always hate getting to these threads late because all the good advice has been given. I've shot both drill that Frank posted above and they aren't bad at all. As already stated, it is better to set a ability goal than one of time. However it has been my experience that most folks can become pretty competent in a 2-3 day group class or 6-8 hours of 1:1 instruction
I always think back to Jeff Cooper's old El Presidente drill as a good measure of minimal proficiency at a time of 7-10 seconds with no misses
A more modern skill test which take fewer shots (6) and only one target is the F.A.S.T. drill, which test ability to draw from concealment, press out, accuracy, magazine change, slide manipulation, and transition to a larger target. As a side benefit it also test the shooter's ability to determine how accurate they need to be to hit a given target (both the 3"x5" card and the 8" plate) from a reasonable distance 21 feet (as opposed to the El Presidente's 30'). Something between 7-10 seconds would be reasonable (the record is 3.56)
I always think back to Jeff Cooper's old El Presidente drill as a good measure of minimal proficiency at a time of 7-10 seconds with no misses
A more modern skill test which take fewer shots (6) and only one target is the F.A.S.T. drill, which test ability to draw from concealment, press out, accuracy, magazine change, slide manipulation, and transition to a larger target. As a side benefit it also test the shooter's ability to determine how accurate they need to be to hit a given target (both the 3"x5" card and the 8" plate) from a reasonable distance 21 feet (as opposed to the El Presidente's 30'). Something between 7-10 seconds would be reasonable (the record is 3.56)
Trunk Monkey
member
I really feel like I’m out of my depth trying to answer this question because it’s so subjective, the best I can come up with is pass/fail. If I’m in an encounter and I survive I had enough training if I don’t I didn’t and if I had enough sense to see the encounter coming and get the Hell out of there I really have enough training.
Most of the standards I see are little more than a series of square range drills with a par time. Do those skills really mean a person knows how to fight with a gun? Maybe sims/FoF is really the way to go. Frankly, I find many of the standards listed here to be very simple with liberal times if performed with a full size service pistol, but they would be very difficult with something like an Xds or Shield carried deeply concealed. Even though I don't shoot as well as I did a few years ago, I can still perform square range drills at a pretty high level. But I still don't feel my tool box is full when it comes to real world FoF training.
I wonder if we would all be better off we we took some of the emphasis off of marksmanship skills and shifted to what it takes to develop a warrior mindset? Just typing out loud.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
One has to remember something else about training as well, even that which is specifically targeted at self-defense:
The average civilian that would take self-defense training with a firearm would probably be a lot like the average civilian that would take self-defense training with martial arts. In other words, they're more likely to conceptually and practically treat it like a sport, hobby, or exercise routine. Only a smaller fraction elevate it to the next level.
Note the difference, for example, between a martial artist trained for actual combat as compared to the average martial artist from the dojo down the street. One who is trained for actual combat isn't out there trying to spar and make points based on style and execution. He's out there trying to take this target DOWN AND OUT, quickly and efficiently. There is no "play" involved.
Perhaps one standard by which we could say that the point of diminishing returns happens is AFTER the person has an epiphiny that all the training they've received (beyond some minimum level of proficiency) is to enable them to actually kill another human being as quickly and efficiently as possible when they have no other choice in order to survive. That this is no longer some game, hobby, or contest; that the weapon they profess to carry for "self-defense" is no longer some abstract concept of self-preservation, but is in fact a means to take deliberately another human life.
Food for though, anyway.
The average civilian that would take self-defense training with a firearm would probably be a lot like the average civilian that would take self-defense training with martial arts. In other words, they're more likely to conceptually and practically treat it like a sport, hobby, or exercise routine. Only a smaller fraction elevate it to the next level.
Note the difference, for example, between a martial artist trained for actual combat as compared to the average martial artist from the dojo down the street. One who is trained for actual combat isn't out there trying to spar and make points based on style and execution. He's out there trying to take this target DOWN AND OUT, quickly and efficiently. There is no "play" involved.
Perhaps one standard by which we could say that the point of diminishing returns happens is AFTER the person has an epiphiny that all the training they've received (beyond some minimum level of proficiency) is to enable them to actually kill another human being as quickly and efficiently as possible when they have no other choice in order to survive. That this is no longer some game, hobby, or contest; that the weapon they profess to carry for "self-defense" is no longer some abstract concept of self-preservation, but is in fact a means to take deliberately another human life.
Food for though, anyway.
Hangingrock
Member
You realize there is a difference between the term Citizen and Civilian. The connotation is important as to how you view your fellow citizens.
"Too much" training would probably be defined as the limit beyond which there is no more effective learning, or when the training covers things that would be inappropriate for civilian needs.
I would consider that a level of diminishing returns is reached when the benefit of what is learned is not balanced by the additional effort.
For the latter, it will certainly be a judgment call.
I would consider that a level of diminishing returns is reached when the benefit of what is learned is not balanced by the additional effort.
For the latter, it will certainly be a judgment call.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I understand. I was thinking from the example of combat trained military. I hope people take it for what I meant. Thanks!
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of "point of diminishing returns".
Seriously, though...I kinda like the part where you say "when the training covers things that would be inappropriate for civilian needs".
That kinda says that everything up to that point is, indeed, the important stuff that people should learn.
Just to set it straight, "civilian" is the appropriate term here.
- We use the Merriam-Webster definition: a civilian is one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force;
- Many, but not all, soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the service of our country are citizens, as are most, if not all, sworn police officers;
- Courts have established that legal immigrants who are not citizens may own and carry firearms wherever citizens may, and they are covered by the same use of force laws as citizens.
That is a common standard, however it is flawed, because it is based on the combined training and luck of both parties.Trunk Monkey said:
You might (1) not have much training and the other party might be in a drugged fantasy impairing his ability to perform or (2) you might be trained to the highest level possible and the other party has enhanced abilities (feel no pain), so nothing you can do works.
This is why, learning from survivors of critical incidents needs to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. I recommend Meditations on Violence by Rory Miller
I've found that when you reach the level of unconscious competence with your physical skill set, it frees you mind to utilize the decision making skills needed to survive a critical incident.Ankeny said:
I used to ask a simple questions of my trainees on our first day together to see where their mindset was. The question was, "Can you shoot/kill someone?"
More than 8 out of 10 would respond with, "If I had to, to save a life"...and this was after having a, hopefully, complete course on the Legal Use of Deadly Force as well as Officer Survival training...while the correct answer should have been "Yes". The more common answer says that they are going to contemplate the ethical need when the situation arises, as opposed to the more important tactical situation at that time...this assumes that they have already considered the legal ramifications.
I'm not sure how one teaches a Warrior mindset. I learned it on the streets growing up and refined it by listening to the experience of survivors while filtering it through personal training and philosophical beliefs
Hangingrock
Member
Jeff Cooper would if he were still among the living disagree. His preference was citizen as opposed to civilian. I'd have to look up his quotes to place them in context. You may go with the dictionary and I'll go with Cooper.
So, to express yourself with clarity and accuracy, you would have to say "citizens and lawful immigrants who may own firearms but who are neither active members of the armed services nor sworn officers".
That's rather wordy, and that is why we prefer the use of the term civilian on this board.
Hangingrock
Member
Kleanbore:That's rather wordy, and that is why we prefer the use of the term civilian on this board.
Let us simply agree to disagree maintain a sense of civilty.
Let us simply agree to disagree maintain a sense of civilty.
Please do remain civil.
But remain accurate, so as not to mislead others. The stakes are too high, and we have a responsibility to our members.
Not all citizens have the same responsibilities: those who serve in the military, those who are sworn to enforce the law, and those who fall into neither category all have different responsibilities and obligations; the tactics and training of those respective groups thus differ accordingly.
There are many who who are not citizens who fall into each of the foregoing categories.
We sometimes refer informally to "armed citizens", but when we discuss tactics, strategies, training, legal issues, and the defense of justification, the term "citizen" doesn't cut it.That is why we and our sister board have long settled upon the Merriam-Webster definition of civilian.
This is not a new subject. We've been there and done that, before my time. Another board has made it a rule. Let's not have to go that far.
Military regulations and jargon use a different definition, which does not serve our purpose here.
Trunk Monkey
member
9MMepiphany said:
This is an old Japanese folk tale I learn when I first started studying martial arts. It had to do whith something my instructor called Zan-Shin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanshin what we would call situational awareness.
Anyway, a prospective student shows up at The Master’s door seeking training, The Master takes him on and puts him to work around the house. Instead of “training” the student The Master begins to ambush him any time day or night, this goes on for years.
One day as the student is cooking dinner The Master Sneaks up behind him with a bamboo rod and takes a swing at him. Without breaking stride the student pulls the lid off the pot and holds it over his head as a shield deflecting the blow and goes right back to cooking rice.
The next day The Master calls him to his chamber, hands him a certificate of mastery of whatever art the student was “studying” and sends him on his way.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
^^^^
Reminds me of Cato Fong in the Pink Panther movies...Inspector Clouseau's manservent who's sole job was to attack Inspector Clouseau at any time of day or night in order to keep Clouseau on his toes.
Reminds me of Cato Fong in the Pink Panther movies...Inspector Clouseau's manservent who's sole job was to attack Inspector Clouseau at any time of day or night in order to keep Clouseau on his toes.
The Chinese have the original version of this story (16th century) involving Monkey...from the famous story Journey to the West and it is a great example of situational awareness. But it isn't the Warrior Mindset.Trunk Monkey said:
The Warrior mindset is more about commitment to a course of action. There is a famous story about a Tea Ceremony Master who was challenged to a duel by the local Warlord over a perceived slight. The Tea Master had no training, but met with the Warlord with the same mindset as he approached his ceremony. That calm was so frightening to the Warlord...who was obviously a bully...that he declined to engage the Tea Master.
One of the strengths of the samurai warrior over his opponents was his acceptance of his own death...what they called going into the Void...to allow him to do whatever he had to, to accomplish his task. It is somewhat misunderstood in the Western Mind
Forget about winning and losing; forget about pride and pain. Let your opponent graze your skin and you smash into his flesh; let him smash into your flesh and you fracture his bones; let him fracture your bones and you take his life. Do not be concerned with escaping safely - lay your life before him. –Bruce Lee
And from Robert Heinlein (a veritable goldmine of quotes):
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. –Starship Troopers
And from Robert Heinlein (a veritable goldmine of quotes):
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. –Starship Troopers
I think mindset is by far most important. Though this thread is about training, I'm totally OK with a mindset drift.
That said: what if the threat is determined to take you out no matter what? What if they are fighting to the death? All you can hope to do mindset-wise is match that. So in this case, mindset will not be the determining factor, it becomes a prerequisite. The outcome of 2 people locked in mortal combat, neither of whom will quit, goes back to training, firepower, luck or some combination thereof.
That is why I always train for the worse-case scenario of somebody who will not stop until they are physically unable to continue. I train to injure until their body doesn't work anymore. That is the only sure thing. They either do that to me first (nobody is invincible), or I do it to them. If they quit early, that's the luck.
That said: what if the threat is determined to take you out no matter what? What if they are fighting to the death? All you can hope to do mindset-wise is match that. So in this case, mindset will not be the determining factor, it becomes a prerequisite. The outcome of 2 people locked in mortal combat, neither of whom will quit, goes back to training, firepower, luck or some combination thereof.
That is why I always train for the worse-case scenario of somebody who will not stop until they are physically unable to continue. I train to injure until their body doesn't work anymore. That is the only sure thing. They either do that to me first (nobody is invincible), or I do it to them. If they quit early, that's the luck.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
