Reality Check: Do you know how to shoot?

[orangeninja]

This may not be a popular question and I’m sure the knee jerk reaction here will be to guff and haw with the seemingly obvious answers “of course” and “duh” but I’ll ask anyway.

This last weekend I went to the range to teach a couple of friends how to shoot. After they got the hang of it and were able to safely do so without my assistance I had the opportunity to watch many, many others at the range fire there various handguns and what I observed was a little disturbing if not at least somewhat entertaining. There were several people (actually the majority of shooters there) who owned and were firing $600-$1K+ handguns but it was obvious that they lacked basic shooting skills with no discernible technique and the results on the paper at the end of the range were fairly consistent with my observation.

So my open ended question here (feel free not to answer…just mull it over) but have you ever paid for training or otherwise received professional training on basic hand gunning? Forget combat techniques, forget tactical this or that, I’m talking about the base lined mechanics such as consistent trigger pull, sight alignment, hand positioning, shooting stance (Weaver, Isosceles or Modified Isosceles). Can you unequivocally say “my shooting stance is (fill in the blank)” and state why? Have you put as much thought and consideration into your shooting technique and why you have chosen to use that technique as you have in the caliber and brand of gun you carry? Have you spent as much money or even a fraction of the money on formal training as you have on your gun (or guns) or even your holsters for that matter?

I know I’m playing devil’s advocate here and maybe rubbing a couple of folks wrong in asking this but do you really know how to shoot? If so, how do you know? Who taught you or how did you learn?

Disclaimer: I for one do not believe shooting is inherently intrinsic to having an interest in firearms, it has to be taught. Being self-taught is not only highly inefficient but likely not effective either...that’s just my admittedly biased opinion.

 

[heeler]

I have never had any formal training that was paid for.
This includes rifles,shotguns,and handguns.
I am a pretty good shot with a long gun and getting better all the time with a hand gun.
I would not mind formal training.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Can you unequivocally say “my shooting stance is (fill in the blank)” and state why?

Nope.

My shooting stance happens to be what ever footing (or lack there of) I can get at the time. It's a lot like any other martial art. Precise and practiced forms are great for the introductory student to learn the basics and set muscle memory, but once things get more advanced the options are a lot more fluid and open to interpretation. One should never compromise good cover because they can't get a proper modified weaver rocking behind it.

And I agree about the range, and the people I see there most frequently. It's all rather scary. I'd love to see what would happen if you took most of them and put them on a dynamic steel range... or perhaps I wouldn't want to see that in person... perhaps only a tape of it. Safer that way.

 

[conw]

Orange, I have to agree with you. The answer for me is "yes" although I scraped by for years without any formal training. Man, if only I had done it sooner. I took a course with Tom Givens and he improved my shooting by about 300%.

I was (and am) a guy who read a lot, thought a lot, and did a lot of dry fire practice (I try to do 15-40 reps a day practicing draw, press out, target transitions). Tom helped me iron out at least two issues...his explanation of how to follow up the first shot, and a way that he tweaked my grip, increased my speed and moved my shots from being about 3-4" left at 5-7 yds, to dead center.

There were other benefits to taking the class, no doubt, but these alone were well worth the price of admission. And they were not things you usually read on the internet.

He also made a good point during a lecture about the Miami FBI shootout of 1986: Platt was probably self-taught, as evidenced by his performance with left hand shooting. There are just gaps that exist if you are self-taught...there is no way you can channel all the wisdom of the last 50 years of firearm instruction, and teach yourself from all the mistakes. There are institutional trends both good and bad, but there is a LOT to be learned under the category "the basics" before you can consider yourself sufficiently prepared to strike out and self-assess and practice.

Here are some names of instructors I'd recommend and plan on taking courses with this year:

-Tom Givens (Memphis TN) - he is among the best, or the best, at giving beginning or intermediate shooters a base on which to build, and probably does great with advanced shooters. He takes people from abysmal shooting to scoring 90%+ on FBI and SWAT qualifiers (my class was up to 92%+ on day 2).

-Paul Gomez (TN?) - he posts here; check out his videos. Paul teaches some bleeding edge stuff that really works. He is very dialed in to some good thinking on grip, dynamics for using the handgun in extremis, robust 1H pistol manipulations, etc.

-Todd Greene (North VA) - Aim Fast Hit Fast purports to drastically improve the speed of shooters, and I believe it. Again, go to Youtube and check out what Todd is doing. It is an intermediate level class though (you need to be able to put a couple of rounds into a 3x5 card at 7 yds on demand), so go to Tom first.

-Claude Werner (Atlanta area) - teaches a wide variety of courses intended to bring students up to a level of proficiency needed to make sound tactical decisions without worrying about skill, and then teach them about tactics. Very well thought out stuff by the looks of it.

All of these guys travel too, so look them up.

BTW, I also can't recommend strongly enough ECQC and/or Southnarc's tape "Fighting Handgun I," which is really crucial for understanding how to run the gun at contact distance, and is probably the best instructional material available on the drawstroke.

 

[orangeninja]

Nope.

My shooting stance happens to be what ever footing (or lack there of) I can get at the time. It's a lot like any other martial art. Precise and practiced forms are great for the introductory student to learn the basics and set muscle memory, but once things get more advanced the options are a lot more fluid and open to interpretation. One should never compromise good cover because they can't get a proper modified weaver rocking behind it.

And I agree about the range, and the people I see there most frequently. It's all rather scary. I'd love to see what would happen if you took most of them and put them on a dynamic steel range... or perhaps I wouldn't want to see that in person... perhaps only a tape of it. Safer that way.

Even the most highly trained pros have a foundation in some type of shooting technique that they build from. Watch a 2 gun transition on a Special Forces documentary for example and you are likely to see a handgun technique of either Weaver or MI. If you ask these guys which they prefer, they'll probably be able to tell you. I just don't buy the "it's all fluid" thing as an excuse for not having a baselined technique any more than I think if you get a large enough caliber that accuracy no longer matters. Of course any force on force situation is fluid and common sense should not be trained out of someone, that said fundamentals are fundamentals for fundamental reasons.

 

[dev_null]

I have found it is deceptive to try and assess others' techniques, since they may not be representative. For example, you might observe someone and decide that they were sloppy and inaccurate when it could instead be that they were performing a speed drill for the first time in a long time, or it might have been they were attempting to teach themselves to point shoot, or it might simply have been their first time with a new gun, etc.

 

[AOK]

I can handle my own. The first few years getting my CPL I went to the range 1-2 times per year and only took the minimum one class requirement to get my CPL. Fast forward a few years later after having a son I thought it would be a good idea to get a little formal instruction. I thought I was pretty good prior to the instruction but after my first class I realized how unprepared I was to defend myself and my family.

I learned basics and fundamentals through Steve Fisher of Magpul Dynamics (back then the class I took was through Michigan Defensive Firearms Institute). I also got better after watching Shooting Missology by James Yeager and started to hit the range 1-2 times per week starting out slow focussing on trigger control, sight alignment, follow through, grip, stance. As I started blowing out the bullseye I shot faster. If my shots started to go wayward I slowed down a little bit and focused on fundamentals. Shots got better I pushed myself more yada yada yada.

Now I try getting to a defensive firearm class or private session every two to three months. Unfortunately between an edged weapon class, Krav, work and family it has been about 4 1/2 months since I have taken a class but I still hit the range as much as possible as well as continue my daily dry practice 20-30 minutes per day.

 

[orangeninja]

I have found it is deceptive to try and assess others' techniques, since they may not be representative. For example, you might observe someone and decide that they were sloppy and inaccurate when it could instead be that they were performing a speed drill for the first time in a long time, or it might have been they were attempting to teach themselves to point shoot, or it might simply have been their first time with a new gun, etc.

Yeah judging a book by its cover can be deceptive, however in this case I think it's a pretty safe gamble. Especially since this was a public range that nobody is allowed to draw from a holster, no movement was allowed (foot wise), etc.

Even when trying out a new gun or point shooting there are fundamentals in play. You don't forget everything because someone sticks something unfamiliar in your mitt and tells you to let 'er rip.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...what I observed was a little disturbing if not at least somewhat entertaining. There were several people (actually the majority of shooters there) who owned and were firing $600-$1K+ handguns but it was obvious that they lacked basic shooting skills with no discernible technique and the results on the paper at the end of the range were fairly consistent with my observation....

Absolutely. I consistently see the majority of shooters at the ranges I frequent displaying atrocious gun handling and abysmal marksmanship -- poking holes all over large silhouettes at short distances, slow fire.

What I find especially disturbing is that it doesn't seem any of them really want to get better. There will usually be one of more others at the range shooting well. No one seems to notice that others are hitting targets and they are not. Perhaps once a year someone will come up to me and ask what his doing wrong or how he could improve.

I'm an NRA certified instructor, and a group of us teach a Basic Handgun class once a month at a local range. During the live fire exercises our students consistently out shoot the majority of the people at the range -- and most of our students have never held a gun before. We have a 2:1 or 3:1 student to instructor ratio, and it's amazing what a little personal instruction on the fundamentals can do.

...have you ever paid for training or otherwise received professional training on basic hand gunning?...

Absolutely. Before I bought my first handgun, I took an NRA Basic Handgun class. I've been taking classes regularly since -- including several trips to Gunsite, Massad Ayoob's LFI-1, classes with Louis Awerbuck, etc. I'm a firm believer in professional training.

Shooting is not an innate skill. It is learned. And there are proper and improper approaches to the fundamentals.

And good training teaches one what to practice. Practice doesn't make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect. If one does something poorly over and over, he's not practicing nor will he improve. He'll just become an expert at doing something poorly.

 

[CoRoMo]

A group of shooters showed up at a steel challenge match last spring. We were happy to have some new faces at the club. They all had brand new Glocks, holsters, and more .40 S&W ammo than I've ever seen outside of a store. But what followed was hard to watch. A few in our group gave some advice here and there, but it was obvious that they really needed to start at square 1, outside of a competitive atmosphere, and with guided instruction. They ran out of ammo before the match was over and I haven't seen them since.

I've also tried to get a relative of mine to begin with proper technique, explaining the importance of stance, grip, draw, etc. But he's only interested in double taps and Mozambique drills. He doesn't want to burn his meager wages on boxes upon boxes of ammo to get the boring little techniques down. He just wants to have fun and do cool stuff.

 

[fnbrowning]

Shooting techique?

Well, speaking for myself, my g/f, and a few closest friends, we were all taught to shoot at an early age by WWII or Korea War veterans. Those were generally serious guys that knew the art of the rifle.

When I lived out west for awhile, I learned the invaluable art of range estimation on formal targets at irregular ranges. I'm very comfortable with a rifle and a very decent shot. Not distingished, but significantly better than the majority of deer hunters and paper-punchers at the local range.

I strongly do not agree with a poster above. I've seen some innately good shooters. It's like any other skill. Some people take to it, and others need training wheels for awhile. I've seen men who were not taught the holy grail of "proper and improper approaches to the fundamentals" consistantly putting down their targets. I guess no one told them they were doin' it wrong. Again, that could just be a generational thing - or a Midwestern/Western thing - or a rural thing.

Pistol? Well the pistol is for fighting your way to the rifle, or, should the rifle run out of ammunition. . .
What ClickClickD'oh wrote has a lot of sense to it.

My shooting stance happens to be what ever footing (or lack there of) I can get at the time. It's a lot like any other martial art. Precise and practiced forms are great for the introductory student to learn the basics and set muscle memory, but once things get more advanced the options are a lot more fluid and open to interpretation. One should never compromise good cover because they can't get a proper modified weaver rocking behind it.

Professional training you ask? . . . sorry, but most training today seems to be taught by the same type of crackerjacks that run gun shops. No thanks!

 

[heeler]

fnbrowning hit on something here about some trainers.
There are two women who work with me that took a training class before they did their CHL class and shooting as both had never even touched a gun before.
The way they described the "trainer" sounded las if the guy was a slip back to the Neanderthal era of men.
Although they both became comfortable shooting they honestly hated the guy giving them the training.
He was recommended by a local gun shop by the way.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I certainly agree with the OP that most people can't shoot. That's why I consistently tell newbies to buy a good .22, get some training and shoot at least 10k rounds before even considering buying a centerfire pistol. That, in my opinion, is the best way to avoid being "that guy" at the range.

 

[orangeninja]

There are a lot of certified mouth breathers out there who do their very best to provide instruction to a woman's chest or hind end...sadly. Even still there are plenty of good trainers out there too, you just have to shop around. An indicator that you might not have the right guy is if your "trainer" also happens to be the gun sales guy.

Anyhow there are quite a few well known reputable trainers at commercial training facilities. Are they expensive? You bet, they cost almost as much as a pair of Kimber 1911's (ammo and lodging included)...and worth every penny.

 

[AOK]

Professional training you ask? . . . sorry, but most training today seems to be taught by the same type of crackerjacks that run gun shops. No thanks!

So you haven't had much formal training or have you had that many bad experiences? I think if you take enough classes you are bound to have a few bad experiences. However, the good far outweigh the bad, at least in my experiences......

 

[Cosmoline]

I started out just doing my own thing, and it works OK with practice. The problem is you're unlikely to question your own methods much, and you're almost certainly overlooking improvements you could be making. Worse, you're repeating poor patterns over and over again making them more difficult to break later. It's always worth the trouble to get instruction if you can. Ideally live instruction, though for some of us that's pretty tough to do. Learning from more experienced shooters informally can be useful. And reading books and watching DVD's is a good way to pick up pointers.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Training is good, and I've had plenty. But if you don't follow-up the training with thousands and thousands of rounds at ranges from 15 to 25 yards, then it was wasted money.

Too many people, with or without training, shoot 50 rounds a month at a paper target hung out at 7 yards. Their bullets land inside the torso of a silhouette target and so they think they can shoot. They can't. This description fits most shooters.

If you aren't challenging yourself every time you shoot, then you will never improve.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There are two women who work with me that took a training class before they did their CHL class and shooting as both had never even touched a gun before.
The way they described the "trainer" sounded las if the guy was a slip back to the Neanderthal era of men....

That's a serious concern. We need to bring women into shooting and we need to do it properly.

Over the last several years our Basic Handgun class has averaged 20% to 30% women. In some classes over half the students were women. They uniformly report a positive experience, and they do very well.

We have regular instructor meetings to discuss ways to improve the class and refine the caliber of instruction. Approaches to teaching women are a regular topic of discussion. Currently two of our instructors are women, one of whom is a POST certified instructor. We hope to add a third as soon as she can complete the NRA certification class.

(BTW, our group teaches because we enjoy it. None of us make any money doing this. Our class fees cover just our expenses, e. g., the ammunition, all of which we furnish, range fees, the cost of the material we hand out, and our overhead (insurance, maintaining a website, postage, etc.).)

Teaching women to shoot can be very satisfying. Over the years, my wife (who is an NRA certified shotgun instructor) and I have also taught many women and girls (as part of coaching our club's youth trapshooting program) wingshooting.

...I strongly do not agree with a poster above. I've seen some innately good shooters. It's like any other skill. Some people take to it, and others need training wheels for awhile. I've seen men who were not taught the holy grail of "proper and improper approaches to the fundamentals" consistantly putting down their targets...

And I strongly disagree with this. Over the years, I've helped teach hundreds of beginners how to shoot, both handguns and wingshooting. To be sure, some people have more natural talent than others and take to it more quickly. But all of them benefit from, and show marked improvement with, a solid focus on certain fundamentals.

 

[Hangingrock]

There are lots of people that are good shots until you apply the pucker factor.

I hope my reply isn’t considered disruptive to the topic but that’s my observation.

 

[orangeninja]

Training is good, and I've had plenty. But if you don't follow-up the training with thousands and thousands of rounds at ranges from 15 to 25 yards, then it was wasted money.

Too many people, with or without training, shoot 50 rounds a month at a paper target hung out at 7 yards. Their bullets land inside the torso of a silhouette target and so they think they can shoot. They can't. This description fits most shooters.

If you aren't challenging yourself every time you shoot, then you will never improve.

I prefer the modified isosceles stance because unlike the Weaver, it does not take constant practice to ingrain into muscle memory and in my experience a beginner can make the perfect triangle more reliably than they can the pressure counter pressure isometric tension the Weaver requires to execute well (some may disagree with me here). I am NOT disagreeing with you though; practice is necessary and very important but I don’t think it has to be thousands and thousands of rounds and training every few months to maintain effective defensive shooting techniques. Especially given that most defensive shootings will occur rapidly, in low light at close distances and the biggest accuracy factor will be muscle memory which can actually be mostly retained using simple dry fire practice.

 

[Sam1911]

It is also important to ask not just "do you know how to shoot?" But, do you know how to shoot the way you (might) need to? Or want to?

Many folks have been taught how to shoot rifles well enough for deer hunting, but handguns aren't much like rifles. Neither are shotguns, really. And wingshooting isn't quite the same thing as defensive shotgunning.

A fair number of folks have been taught the fundamentals of sight picture, trigger control, and natural point of aim, and are acceptably accurate on the bullseye range with their pistol, but do scary things when drawing a gun from a holster, and can't get an aimed shot off in under a second and a half, let alone shoot and move at the same time.

Of course, the opposite is true. Someone who's bought their first gun for defense, and has been to Tom Givens' classes, or Gunsite, even -- and has practiced what they were taught -- may be very capable of defending themself at social distances with a hangun. They'd be pretty hopeless, though, at Camp Perry. Or at skeet, or 3-position small-bore rifle, etc. So the question is complicated.

Plenty of folks can say they know how to shoot -- because the Boy Scouts or the Army taught them how. They're right ... to a point. There's lots of kinds of training in the world. You'd need a whole lot of free time (and cash) to say you were a truly well-rounded and accomplished shooter.

There's a few things I know... but I'm just an enthusiastic amateur with the majority of shooting types.

 

[Zach S]

I learned myself, the only instruction I've had was the NC CCW class. I don't agree that being self-taught is ineffective, but will agree that its inefficient.

From talking to friends on the job, I can honestly say that I shoot better than most LEOs. However, I have a lot of room for improvement.

I used to live in the sticks. I was able to step out on my back porch to shoot, and I did so quite often. Granted, I wasn't [insert name of famous competitive shooter here], but being back in the sticks where I had enough room to shoot on the move, practice low-light, weak side cover, etc, was a lot of help, and fun.

I now live downtown. Getting to the range can be a chore, only to stand in one place and shoot at a stationary target. I normally only get there once a month. And it shows.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...NOT disagreeing with you though; practice is necessary and very important but I don’t think it has to be thousands and thousands of rounds and training every few months to maintain effective defensive shooting techniques. Especially given that most defensive shootings will occur rapidly, in low light at close distances and the biggest accuracy factor will be muscle memory which can actually be mostly retained using simple dry fire practice....

It can also be helpful to understand the way humans learn a physical skill. In learning a physical skill, we all go through a four step process:

(1) unconscious incompetence, we can't do something and we don't even know how to do it;

(2) conscious incompetence, we can't physically do something, at least consistently, even though we know in our mind how to do it;

(3) conscious competence, we know how to do something and can do it properly consistently, but only if we think about what we're doing and concentrate on doing it properly; and

(4) unconscious competence, at this final stage we know how to do something and can do it reflexively, on demand and without having to think about it.

To get to the third stage, you need to think through the physical task consciously in order to do it perfectly. Then going from conscious competence to unconscious competence is usually thought to take around 5,000 good repetitions. The good news is that, in the case of shooting, dry practice will count. The bad news is that poor repetitions don't count and can set you back.

If one has reached the stage of unconscious competence he will still need to practice regularly and properly to maintain proficiency, but it's easier to maintain it once achieved than it was to first achieve it.

 

[Griffin2020]

When I was formally trained, it was to use the Weaver. Since I have been out of the military for 20 years, and have only recently picked up a pistol again, the basics are still there, but the fine tuning of technique will only come back with practice. My accuracy is nowhere near what it was when I was regularly burning through hundreds if not thousands of rounds of ammunition every month. I can see it beginning to come back as I spend more time at the range, but really, throwing lead at paper is the only true way to build that accuracy.

 

[Sam1911]

Since I have been out of the military for 20 years,... My accuracy is nowhere near what it was when I was regularly burning through hundreds if not thousands of rounds of ammunition every month.

Did the military have you shooting that much handgun ammo, or was that on your own time/dime? Most accounts we see indicate that very few military personnel get anything beyond an extremely basic familiarization with a sidearm.