I wanted to post some thoughts here, about training, and ways to go about it, lest I be considered a shill, and not contributing anything beyond that.

I will restrict myself to serious, self-defense training, since that's the only reason I do this stuff.  If you have other applications, then modify particulars as required.

There has been some discussion in other threads about training progression, what it is, what's really needed, etc.  I wanted to post an experience of mine to illustrate a point.

Since I live on the edge of "Pineland", I have had the privilege to meet some folks that do a lot of training.  I was invited to this particular class for gear makers one time.  It was to demonstrate the practical/tactical realities of gear design, and let us "interface" with some real shooters.  One of the takeaways was the way they trained.  One of the instructors was a recent graduate of OTC, from a special missions unit.  The progression he described was fascinating.  The upshot of it was they spent huge amounts of time on the "basics", in building block form, before moving on to all the stuff that everyone wants to do.  There were guys from SF and NSW units as well.  This was actually a common theme with them.  The constantly trained and re-trained in the "basics", on at least an annual (or pre-deployment) basis.  

This was a big eye-opener for me, because at the time, MagPul Dynamics had their little dog and pony show going around the country, and a lot of folks were enthralled with the flashy, entertaining training.  I was looking for the "high-speed" techniques and thought wow, this is the cool stuff.   But the reality of it was long, hard days of practicing the basics, not flashy techniques.  Or flashy gear, but that's another story.

So I just wanted to add this to the conversation here.  I believe that square range training is essential to build the foundation of your shooting skills.  A lot of time and effort is required to master the shooting fundamentals.  And must be constantly refreshed.  I also believe that expanded range types are necessary to progress into other aspects of gunfight training.  It is not a question of either/or.  It's a question of BOTH.

Now some may question the application of additional techniques, such as SUT and the like, for "normal" scenarios.  After giving it some thought lately, I actually think there is more crossover than we previously may have thought.  The team aspect of it would be applicable in many situations, from home invasion, to active shooter events.  So it's not just about playing "batman in the boondocks".  

If you are a serious student of armed self-defense, I would encourage you to seek out good, solid training, and master these foundational skills before moving on to other stuff.  But then, at the same time, I would also encourage you to seek out additional training that applies these skills in more realistic settings, be it rural or urban.  

I do not claim to be high-speed by association with others.  I'm a gear maker and try to stay in my lane.  But I have been privileged to train with some folks that normally don't post on line and wanted to share that with you.  FWIW.

Very good post.

I think you bring up really a good point about training the "basics" over and over. Recently I've been working on my draw stroke with a timer and and I'm getting fast. Much faster than I thought I could be. But what I notice is that it's really helping my overall game as well.

Good point.  A buddy of mine just got on my ass recently about doing the same thing.  There is definitely something to be said about doing drills under timer.

As I see it, an individual needs to take a pistol course (or two, or three). After that,
carbine training would be the next logical step.

Periodic review of 'the fundamentals' (taking the occasional 'basic' course) is essential.

That's how I see it.

This is all a VITAL point, that perhaps I have been guilty of forgetting to stress, while all the while stressing the importance of a correct training progression. The great unspoken in that, is mastery of the basics, before you move on.

However, what that means is, for example, mastery of basic rifle marksmanship (fundamentals of marksmanship) before moving on to tactical applications, first on the square range, then on more advanced tactical ranges. One thing that is often missed is that the shooting skills are a parallel traveller with SUT, which merge on the tactical ranges. But that is a separate topic.

Now, what is VITAL and identified by posters here is that there is NO REAL HIGH SPEED SECRET SQUIRREL STUFF. Yes, there may be specific TTPS utilized by different units, but the point is that SUT is SUT. Do you want to learn British SOF / SAS patrol break contact drills? Or maybe CAG? Great, because that is what you are taught on Combat Team Tactics!

There are those who sit behind keyboards hinting at secret squirrel stuff, when that is pure BS. I have posted on my blog on multiple occasions about GOOD SOLID BASICS. That is all it is.

Now, the difference between how you may conduct SUT and, for arguments sake CAG, is the amount of training time you may put in, and other elements such as physical and mental selection / fitness.

That is why I will tell you that I can easily teach you the basics of SUT on a progression of 2 and 3  day classes. How? Because we have the COI nailed down and it's not that complex, given our experience as instructors. Now, are you going to break contact like a CAG recce patrol might? That is a function of how much you CONTINUE to train, and if you come back to nail it down with further classes.

The point is, to survive a threat to your life, you don't have to do better than CAG, you just have to do it well enough to fight your way out.

Don't  believe the keyboard commandos that hint at secret squirrel knowledge. SUT is a pretty well nailed down subject, that just takes knowledgeable and experienced ibstructors to teach. Competence is reached by repetition on what are simply GOOD SOLID BASICS.

I once worked as an Action Officer for an O-6 who worked for GEN Mattis at that time.
And we got to hear this one thing all over again : "Brilliance in the Basics"

That's all everything really ever comes down to... no matter your funding and your "Tier".

Thanks Diz
I remember those videos etc. at that time in my life I had a bunch of obstacles to training and didn't jump on the bandwagon. In a way I am glad because when I did begin training, I went with the stone simple basics and didn't have too many scars to fix. Those basics are the core of everything else. Having the ability to keep my guns working is paramount. I can't be effective nor can I improve at anything if I am not able to move thru the basics uncosiously, freeing brain time to focus on the task.

Funny you should mention that.  I was practicing hard for the Rifleman Challenge the last few months but found my pistol groups were pulling left.    My buddy found that my trigger finger was dragging on the (G-19) frame, causing shots to pull left.  By moving my finger out of the trigger a little bit, and got a better pull straight back, and therefor straighter shooting.  Now where did a put that dremel?

Hmmm.. Last Night I was also pulling left.
My zero is for taking your time, precision shots but when I shoot quick I go  a bit left and low....
Not enough to make a difference at 10 yards (or even at 20 as I tested out just to make sure) but still it bugs me a bit.

If you're right-handed, low-left is probably "El Snatcho"...  Vickers-speak for anticipating recoil and trying to compensate for it before the bullet has actually left the barrel.  Pretty good cure for that is "ball and dummy" drills.  Randomly load about 60-80% dummy rounds into a magazine, or work with a partner to simulate same.  You will dry-fire most of the time, but not know when a live round is coming up.  When you break a dry shot, and see your front sight drop low-left, that's "El Snatcho".  Fix it by clearing the pistol and doing a half dozen deliberate dry-fires without letting the front sight move, so you reinforce the correct trigger press at least 5 times as much as you "snatch" the trigger.

...Yes, the "high speed" tactics stuff is all good, but you HAVE to get this basic stuff nailed down, and keep nailing it down with constant practice, or it will degrade.  Goes right along with TonyF's quote about trigger control being 95% of "SWAT stuff", and with what Max Velocity says about there being no such thing as "high speed secret squirrel stuff" - just basics done consistently well under all kinds of adverse conditions.

Diz: a great topic.  Glad to see you start this.

The issue I have with most people's concepts of training progression is that it is linear. They go to class A, then B, then C, and so on until they believe they they are trained enough.  This may look something like this: Basic Pistol, CCW, Rifle, Pistol 2, Rifle 2, rural tactics, urban tactics, medical, and so on.  However, this is set up based upon 2 problems, stemming mostly from the trainer's end.  1) Adult learners need time to fully learn and understand concepts and 2) the courses are set up for the ease of the trainers, not the ease of the students.

Saturate, Incubate, Illuminate:
For learning to occur, the material must be presented, and we know that most adult learners only retain 50% of what they hear, 60% of what they see, and 85% of what they do. This is the saturation phase.  The material is going in.  Students use short term recollection to perform the tasks as it slowly begins to get hardwired into their memory.  Now it is the Incubation phase.  The student begins to refine the task based upon those repetitions.  Mistakes are sometimes made and now questions are being formed.  This is why students have questions several days after a class rather than immediately afterwards.  The information has had time to grow and develop.  The illumination process is where the student is able to repeat the task correctly based upon it being hardwired into their memory.  It is now learned.  The process takes time dependant on the skill being learned and the abilities of the student.  Some people pick things up quickly and others you need a rock to beat it into them.  Basic draw stroke has a shorter overall learning time than tactics.  Most of the 2-3 day courses don't allow sufficient time for the material to incubate, let alone for the student to actually learn it.  They are just utilizations of short term memory recollection.  While some material is truly learned, most of it does not get the ability to incubate.  The student doesn't get to question it, or mess it up, until AFTER the course is completed.  Then what does the student do...just forget it?  Without going back and revisiting those tasks, the student doesn't get to the Illumination phase.

This is where is gets difficult.  Most people don't want to, or cannot, commit the time or money to spend at a training course to fully learn.  They only have the weekend or don't want to come back the next weekend.  I understand this and unfortunately I don't not have the perfect solution for that. This is why there are COURSES vs CLASSES.  Classes work on a few skills in a specific area.  Courses work on many skills in different areas.  Again, I understand that most can't afford longer courses and have to take classes.  The key is that you have to go back to previous classes to fully learn those skills.  If you potentially only learned, at best, 85% of what you did at a class, why not go back later on an learn the other 15% and refine the 85% that you did learn?  If everyone agrees with the phrase "there are no advanced skills, only the application of basic skills under stress" then why is everyone willing to take more basic classes again?  Why aren't all trainers requiring students to come back and demonstrate the skills taught after the student has had time for them to fully incubate?  Some do and I applaud them for that.  But why the stigma on taking basic courses?  Your reloads can't be any more efficient?  Your split times and transition times are good enough?  Being a superb basic shooter is much better than being a shitty "advanced" shooter.  While students want to push their limits in practice and training, very few want to perfect those basics.  It does make more work for the instructor to have students come back or to set up challenges/training/etc...  However, these methods have been proven over centuries.  Learning takes time.  There are no shortcuts.  Anyone who says otherwise is simply looking for your money.  

So, based upon this, my belief is that the training progression model should look more like a game of Tetris.  The different shaped blocks are skills.  Bigger shapes are more involved skillsets such as tactics or medical and the smaller ones are simpler skills.  At first, the student has plenty of space so they can pretty much pick and choose what skills seem interesting, preferably lots of smaller blocks and a few bigger ones.  After a few blocks though, certain spaces develop that can only be filled by a specific block, based upon their needs.  For example, the CCW'er may need a basic medical block rather than a rifle block because they saw someone ND at the local range.  The blocks aren't always full courses.  Someone starting out may not need full 10 day driving course wight away but take a 1 day winter driving course to fill a space, dependant on their need.  That 10 day course may come later down the road when that block is needed and fits into their progression.  With this model, you see how training a) does not have to be long, expensive, and in depth to fulfill a need, and b) that the little blocks, the basics/fundamentals, are necessary at all stages of the progression.  Revisiting smaller parts of the larger blocks allows for full learning and refinement of those skills.  I may not need another full Live Tissue class right now (although I wouldn't turn one down) but spending a few hours on airway management, pain management, or hemorrhage control would help refine those smaller blocks.  

What skills should someone work on?  That is entirely based upon their needs, wants, and financial & time constraints.  While shooting is fun and cool, there are many more skills that are simple to training and practice that are often overlooked (not counting PT...that's an entirely different topic). It doesn't cost much to get a map and compass and go land nav.  It doesn't cost much to show your spouse how to properly apply a TQ.  Some of those skills are: medical (basic field & wilderness, pharmacology, emergency trauma management), driving (track, off road, winter), surveillance detection,  land nav, basic survival (rural & urban), E&E/emergency planning, communications, tracking, rural and urban movements, basic food gathering & crop management, basic engineering and construction.  Again, all of this is dependant on the student's needs.  The goal is not to get to "z" and then we're done; it is to continue to fill needs as they develop while planning for future needs...just like Tetris.  

Low left (for a right handed shooter) is likely traced back more to allow the wrist to relax at the moment of ignition coupled with moving the trigger in a manner other than straight to the rear.   Pure recoil anticipation is typically shown via 6 o'clock hits on the target

Some topics can be addressed in a manner most people that attend classes dont think about it. Example:


Medical classes such as those done by companies like Dark Angel can be prepped for by taking medical classes offered by the Red Cross or by going through an EMT program at the local community college.

Empty hand self defense skills are better obtained through training at a formal martial arts school or in a "work group" that meets on a regular basis.

In regards to training progression, this has been my experience as well.  Using an algebra analogy.  The first time you are exposed to it, you get some of it.  The next time, a little more, and so on.  Each time I have repeated at class at MVT, I have had time to absorb, practice, and come back again to improve my performance.  

This is a huge issue, especially for those who are doing this on their own dime, with other full-time jobs.  I too have no sure-fire solution to it either.  Other than to say you need to perhaps look at the "club" model.  Interested people meet and refine their training, and establish specific SOP's for their terrain and situation.  The vast amount of finishing and refining will be done at the local level.  This is the critical, often neglected step.

Another point is your individual estimate of the situation.  We all see things in our own way.  One guy may be training and preparing for something, another guy thinks is totally unnecessary.  One guy might be talking from the perspective of a LEO, concerning tactical training.  Another guy might be thinking in terms of a home owner, trying to defend against a violent home invasion.  So your mission statement drives your training, which again is gonna be different for various folks.

So what is the best solution, for armed citizens, seeking to train themselves, according to their estimate of the sit?  Man, that's a tough one.  Just for shits and giggles, I'll throw this one in.  I once talked to practitioner of the Philippino martial arts.  Their training philosophy was to start at a basic level, and train a guy in what he needed to know, and could learn, RIGHT NOW, to defend his barrio.  Then as time permitted, he was taught more things, to constantly refine and improve his skills.  So they turned classic Japanese style training on it's head.  They started out with the most deadly or effective weapons training FIRST, and then continued on with other weapons, finally ending up with empty-handed techniques.

Is this a viable model for us?  As armed citizens, training for come what may?  You start with a "Guru" and students, in a local setting.  You train them according to the highest/likeliest threats first.  You then cover other skills, as time, and the threat matrix dictate.  There is continuous sustainment training (the Philippinos were famous for their "backyard" training sessions).  So no, it isn't all done in a day, but it is done with an eye towards giving you the tools you can use, in case you need them right now, and with the understanding that it's a continuous progression, as time allows.  So in an imperfect world, it's a compromise between getting SOMETHING right now, and then refining, improving it as time goes on.  It would seem that would make a pretty good model, for civilians caught up in a WROL situation?    

I need to work on that a bit.
Back to the range tommnorrow :)

Also, to work on not breaking my wrist, my buddy had me practicing squeezing tighter with support hand grip, which helped a lot.

This has been a good, productive thread so far.  Let's continue it.

TonyF
To elaborate:

Often when we set up classes we use the basic building block method, which is fine.  It works.  However, we do not go back to previous blocks as we assume they will be improved on as training progresses.  It is easier for us to move from:(basic example)  stance, grip, draw, dry fire, single shot, multiple shots, reloads, etc... Draw stroke gets better with repetition and they are doing repetitions from then on.  This type of progression flows well for us.  What about for the student?  Where is the chance to let the material incubate?  Instead, they are too busy focusing on the next topic that needs to saturate and not fully grasp the previous skills.  Skills need to be revisited by themselves, not just coupled with the next task.  I've found 2 ways to fix this.

1) work 3-4 skills then go back to the beginning.  You will see wonders in progression by going back to say dryfire and single shots after working multiple shots for a bit.  Getting away from runs in a shoothouse and working on basic turns/lateral movement will give time to allow incubation as well as slow movement down when they start outrunning their headlights.  I know this doesn't flow as nicely as a A, B, C  approach but it gives the students time to let the material sink in and process.

2) Allow longer rest periods for the students.  Most trainers use the 50/10 work & rest method with a typical lunch break around noon.  I've found, when possible (I know sometimes you cannot dictate the times) that having 2 one hour rest periods gives the students more time to work on skills they needed and allow the material to incubate.  I try to run 8-11, then rest 1 hr, 12-3, rest 1 hr, 4-6.  During the rest periods, I leave the range open for students to work on what they wish (dependant on skill level).  After a quick snack or meal, most will move to the range to work things out.  Some people want to work on their draw stroke without a timer, some want to see of they can run a drill in under 6 sec... The 2 longer rest periods give the students the chance to do so while still being somewhat supervised.  Your not necessarily teaching, but the students are still learning.  They will push a little bit harder because they are not under the eye of the instructor and find that failure point.  Yet when a question or problem arises, you are nearby and have the ability to answer it.  This takes more time in the day so it is a bit of an inconvenience for the instructor.  I get it.  At the end of the day I just want to clean up & get my beer but the goal is to train the students, not do what is comfortable for me.  

Hope that clears that up for you a bit.

That's interesting, about letting the material soak in, and students working out on their own.  In a perfect world, it'd be nice to do a progression of weekends, where students could get the repetitions in during the week.  

Maybe a club type of set up?  Where training is continuous and on-going, every weekend.  Training cadre would need to rotate or probably be single very quickly.  Very labor-intensive for cadre, but nice if you could get there.  I'm a big believer in sustainment training, so this would also be the perfect vehicle for that as well.    

There was a guy out in Kali, who used to have an "alumni weekend" once a month.  After your class, you could come back every month and work on the skill sets he taught you, and get further tips if required.  He even documented the training, so you could use it as an application for a CCW, with his endorsement, which was extremely hard to come by out there.

...this exact thing jumped out at me as well when I watched the youtube vids of many of the "big name combat rifle/handgun schools"..

The courses were clearly set-up for the convenience of the instructors not the learning of the students.
That really bugged me ..
That's one big reason why I am have been looking for alternative schools/approaches such as the ones mentioned prominently on here by others..

Money talks... Which bring us back to paying for it. Other people's training and experience costs money to learn. I have yet to find the tactical Ghandi that gives away what they trained up for, paid for themselves, and put in the hours of work for.  If training was given away consistently, I would be instantly suspicious of the quality.  However, with as many instructors as there are today and with each one having their own experiences and knowledge to share, it wouldn't be difficult to do a "sustainment" level class with a different instructor each time.  Perhaps approaching them with that option (6-8 guys, $75 ea, 10 hrs of working with us on X, Y, Z skills) would work rather than paying $150-250 per person for a class again?  Ive done similar for several agencies in my off time.  What person turns down a few hundred bucks to spend an informal day shooting & working with similar guys?

Clint Smith has said that he would be perfectly happy if his tombstone read:  "He taught the Basics".

It's easy to train for free. I've done it for 20 years. You just have to have a range and buddies that like to take classes! Every instructor I know will provide 1 or 2 free slots for the course host if you can come up with at least 10 paying students. Takes a little hustle but I'm not bitching. I've had easily $20,000 worth of FREE courses in the last two decades....

^^^smart man

Yeah, after your initial COI, I think sustainment courses like that would be awesome.  I'd try and go at least once a month.  

I think this is the key.  Finding something at the local level to really own all that stuff you were taught in class.  

What are your thoughts on DVD's?  For example, I have Paul Howe's series on pistol and rifle.  These are like "talking notebooks" that you can refer back to.  Not to replace training, but good for pre-course prep, and sustainment?

Not sure who the question was directed at, but I'll throw in my 2-bits, since I have trained with Paul Howe and Pat Rogers, and own a bunch of their Panteao videos.  The videos are GREAT pre-class primer, or post-class reminder.  They are NOT a replacement for everything you get in a class, though.  The "talking notebook" is pretty accurate, but with Howe's "Citizen Response to Active Shooter" for example, there is a BUNCH of complex stuff that is mentioned in the video that you can't even begin to get your head wrapped around without spending a few days doing his training progression through the shoot houses.  Even with Pat Rogers' basic square range stuff, you're not going to "learn" the same thing from a video that you will learn in a 3 day course.

Good point.  I just shot-gun some thought s out there.  Not necessarily aimed at anyone.  Appreciate the answer though.

Yeah I have several of Paul Howe's vids myself.  Good, solid info to get you up and running on pistol and rifle.  Some guys like a preview of material before going to class.  And they're great for sustainment.   But agreed, don't replace actual hands-on training.  

For me, I'm the type of guy that likes to have a preview of what's gonna be covered.  I want to make sure I fully understand the concept, so I can concentrate on performing it, not trying to wrap my head around understanding it.  Or even remembering it.  That kind of thing.

Basically, I really believe that repetition is the key to learning.  If you're not following up on what you learn in class, you might lose it.  So whatever you need to accomplish this.

I have found I use two approaches to learning.  Either I take continuous notes, so I have the material later to study.  Or I pay full attention to what being said, right now, and spend all my effort trying to process it.  The full note route gives me great documentation of what was covered, so I can refer back to it.  The full attention method lets me really process info, without the distraction of writing.  I would prefer this method, so having a DVD, or at least a good course outline/student handout is the best deal for me.

I've tried both methods, and I agree that just "becoming a sponge" in a course, seems to be most productive for me.  Then within a day or two after class, I write up sort of a course outline based on my memory of the class.  I know there are things I forget, since I've repeated courses and learned things the second or third time that my brain must have been too full to absorb the previous time.  But overall, it seems more productive for me to forego the the note-writing until after the class.  That post-class brainstorm can be a good outline for an "AAR" as well.

A good AAR is key. It lets students fill out the notes they should have been taking during breaks but didn't!