I took a course from the FIRE Institute two years ago (basic carbine).  They run a tight ship and are very particular about range safety and proper technique.  I highly recommend them to anyone in the area looking for some good, properly structured training.

Originally Posted By sully: . . . I have found is that those people have a hard time keeping up due to their lack of familarity of basic manipulations etc.

Could you list some of the shortcomings you see?

Maybe it would help with prerequisites for instructors to have a list of skills they expect to be mastered before entering a specific course?

Sully and Tony ... thanks for the response.  That's what I was thinking, but it helps to know for sure.  

Do you guys think it would be a good idea to have a list of requirements for your various classes, along the lines of "You should be able to do __________ before you take this class"?  It might help people make better choices, as I think some make honest mistakes when they enter classes thinking they are up to speed when they are not.

It would also help those who have the prerequisites in terms of completing a specific series of classes, but who may not have mastered or retained the skills they were taught.

I'm dismayed when I hear/read of someone who shoots one of my disciplines (or something closely related) who had not mastered the basics, even though they have a higher classification.  It's embarassing to the rest of us, and it makes me wonder how they can get through a match safely, much less classify higher than D or Novice or whatever.

For what it's worth, I do try to help inexperienced shooters when they are obviously having problems with basics in matches.  It's not formal training, obviously, but I have helped a few learn some fundamentals such as how to draw safely and efficiently, and more importantly reholster one-handed without looking ... SAFELY.  Today I helped a new shooter learn about sight/boreline offset, so she could get better hits at closer than 25 yards with her spiffy new AR.

We (at my local clubs) try to make sure people are squared away with the basics and help those who are not, but I suppose a few slip through the cracks now and then.

I do feel your pain on this issue, too.  I was in a level 2 handgun class last summer and we had to spend way, way too much time getting most of the class up to speed on basic marksmanship skills on single, static targets.  I feel compassion for the stragglers, but when you're paying that much money to learn stuff you didn't cover in a level 1, then at some point it becomes unacceptable.  I don't really know what the deal was with some of them, but most (I'll refrain from saying "all") of the "problem children" were LEOs.  I wonder if they thought they should be in a more advanced class because they'd had their basic academy firearms training???  I'll never know, but it would be interesting to know if they had completed the expected prerequisites, but just hadn't mastered or retained the skills.

Thanks again to both of you for the responses!

There are also a few who seem to be squared away with no formal training whatsoever.  I met a guy a few years ago who "looked" like he'd been to multiple shooting schools, and in fact he was far more skilled in terms of rapidly getting good hits on targets than 99% of the people I've seen in classes.  It turned out he'd had zero formal training, but he just practiced what he'd seen others do and what he'd read.  When he did take a class, it was obvious he was doing fine on his own because he had no problems and executed the drills better than anyone else.

It's very much possible for many individuals to master any and all of these skills on their own (but learning from a qualified instructor certainly makes it easier and faster).  The problem is, no instructor can know (with observing them in action) when someone like that comes along, so prerequisites are necessary.  

Originally Posted By rhino_: ...in fact he was far more skilled in terms of rapidly getting good hits on targets than 99% of the people I've seen in classes.  ...

Pete has told me a number of times that Marksmanship is only 10% of the skills needed for a gunfight.  It's not much of a chore to be able to hit a 6-8" target at 50y or less.  The stuff most people need to learn involves things like unslinging, clearing malfunctions (don't talke to me about SPORTS - I know SPORTS very well, the method taught at FIRE and other schools is MUCH better), also stuff like loading, proper stance, weapon presentation, movement, shooting while moving, use of lights and other skills.  Those kinds of things are near impossible to learn from a book or video.

Originally Posted By Forest: Pete has told me a number of times that Marksmanship is only 10% of the skills needed for a gunfight.  It's not much of a chore to be able to hit a 6-8" target at 50y or less.  The stuff most people need to learn involves things like unslinging, clearing malfunctions (don't talke to me about SPORTS - I know SPORTS very well, the method taught at FIRE and other schools is MUCH better), also stuff like loading, proper stance, weapon presentation, movement, shooting while moving, use of lights and other skills.  Those kinds of things are near impossible to learn from a book or video.

Perhaps I was not clear in my original message, but the guy had zero problem with any of the things you mentioned.  When I said he got the hits, I meant to imply all of the other things as well.  

They're hardly impossible to learn outside of formal training, as I've seen multiple of examples of people who could teach the skills you mention who never attended a class.  Would they have learned more efficiently with formal instruction?  Probably.   Does everyone have what it takes to learn those skills without formal instruction?  Probably not.

My point is, you can't assume that someone can or can't perform the necessary skills based on their resume.  Either they can or they can't.  The chances are significantly greater if they've had the proper instruction, but you can't make the blanket assumption that a lack of the "pedigree" equates to not being able to do it.  Reality doesn't support that.

It's not unlike any other academic pursuit.  Just because someone has had lots of math classes in college doesn't automatically mean that he can solve all the same problems a year later.  Conversely, just because someone didn't finish high school doesn't mean they can't.  There are always exceptions.

"They're hardly impossible to learn outside of formal training, as I've seen multiple of examples of people who could teach the skills you mention who never attended a class.  Would they have learned more efficiently with formal instruction?  Probably.   Does everyone have what it takes to learn those skills without formal instruction?  Probably not."


It is as Col. Cooper says: "Having a gun and thinking you are armed is like buying a piano and thinking you are a musician."  I can think of no better analogy than that.

There are people who have taught themselves to play the guitar, just as there are self-taught riflemen. The great majority of those who have taken the large amounts of  time to teach themselves guitar would not only have reached thier present level of proficiency a lot faster if they had taken lessons, they would also be much better musicains.

While a fully agree that it is not impossible to learn a good shooting system without formal instruction, "not impossible" is hardly a standard of difficulty I would care to face.  I would also venture to say that nobody has ever been the best rifleman they can be without formal instruction.  

PeteG

My very first Carbine course had the first half of the first day basically ruined by the fact that a few of the students just couldn't get a 50 yard zero dialed in. A couple of the students refused to go prone for the process and tried to zero in shooting off hand, standing, with their $289 WASR-10's. I think we wasted about 3 - 4 hours just because 4 guys came in without being sighted in and had no idea how to do it.

Originally Posted By sully: Let pose this for discussion purposes:        I much prefer the current way that we do things and that is you are either an alumnus of ours, or of somenone elses's course that we consider quality in the doctrine, and that we know the quality of the school and instructor, and it is verifiable (as we do check). CY6, Greg Sullivan "Sully" Chief Instructor TheDefensiveEdge.com

      The problem I see with this is everyone that takes a basic course doesn't come out with the same skill level. It seems the certificate means you paid,showed up and made an effort.
     So is everyone that takes basic carbine ready for  the next level................Apparently

This is posed for discussion purposes

Originally Posted By Bugler:       The problem I see with this is everyone that takes a basic course doesn't come out with the same skill level. It seems the certificate means you paid,showed up and made an effort.      So is everyone that takes basic carbine ready for  the next level................Apparently This is posed for discussion purposes

I've never taken a course (we're not just talking Firearms here) where everyone left with the same skill level.  Take highschool for instance, most everyone graduated with a diploma - were the skill level the same?  Of course not!

I think the question is are certificates handed out to everyone for showing up, and/or do the instructors withhold them from students who have not picked up the materials sufficiently?

Originally Posted By sully: Let pose this for discussion purposes:         We take a student in on the basis of their word that they can meet the skills necessary to attend an advanced or tactics course, that they have no prior formal training, but are sure that they can keep up without being a safety hazard or slow a class down.  If we were to waive a prerequisite for a training course, and in lieu of we had a qualification course of fire instead, would people be interested in the qualification course instead of a prerequisite???

I can see both sides on this one, and I wouldn't have a problem with it.  I know that if I were among the people causing the other paying students to spend too much time on remedial lessons, I would not feel very good about it.  As  I mentioned in a previous message, I feel compassion for the stragglers whether it's because they don't absorb as quickly or they were unprepared, but at some point it's just not fair to the others who are paying customers as well.


I think the key would be for the instructor to:

1. Require that the potential student understand and acknowledge the terms.
2. Make the requirements explicit, including the exact minimum performance requirements.  This could be tough, but not impossible

As long as both side are aware of the deal, enter it freely, it's obviously fair.

On the other hand, you're absolutely right about people thinking the instructor is "unfair" if they don't pass and get sent home.  Some egos are both enormous targets as well as being very fragile, and regardless of whether or not it is objectively "fair," some will always have a significantly negative reaction.

Perhaps there is a compromise.  Instead of having them forfeit their money completely, why not give them credit for the entry level class or even credit for the same class in the future, pending their ability to pass the skills test?  They still might be out for travel expenses, but it would soften the blow of losing the tuition money too.

I don't think there is a "perfect" solution to this, because (as others have stated), even if someone has completed the prereqs, it's not 100% assurance that they are still (or ever were) up to speed for the next evolution.

Originally Posted By Forest: Originally Posted By Bugler:       The problem I see with this is everyone that takes a basic course doesn't come out with the same skill level. It seems the certificate means you paid,showed up and made an effort.      So is everyone that takes basic carbine ready for  the next level................Apparently This is posed for discussion purposes I've never taken a course (we're not just talking Firearms here) where everyone left with the same skill level.  Take highschool for instance, most everyone graduated with a diploma - were the skill level the same?  Of course not! I think the question is are certificates handed out to everyone for showing up, and/or do the instructors withhold them from students who have not picked up the materials sufficiently?

I think thats what I said

I think thats  a "Yes" and a "no" . If thats correct what does a CERT. from XYZ training really tell Sully?

Originally Posted By TonyF: Originally Posted By Bugler: The problem I see with this is everyone that takes a basic course doesn't come out with the same skill level. It seems the certificate means you paid,showed up and made an effort. So is everyone that takes basic carbine ready for  the next level................Apparently. This is posed for discussion purposes Everyone comes away from a basic course with varying degree's of accomplished skills. Results  are very individualistic. But the point is, once someone attends a basic course they have at least been exposed to a specific skill set

Agreed, but Being exposed to it and performing it aren't the same, are they?

And at the same time you and I both know people who are qualified for the advanced courses but havn't taken the Basics.

   Pete posted in another thread about a Pre Qualifier sorta like what Sully mentions above, some would be interested in that.

Originally Posted By TonyF: Originally Posted By Bugler: Originally Posted By TonyF: Originally Posted By Bugler: The problem I see with this is everyone that takes a basic course doesn't come out with the same skill level. It seems the certificate means you paid,showed up and made an effort. So is everyone that takes basic carbine ready for  the next level................Apparently. This is posed for discussion purposes And at the same time you and I both know people who are qualified for the advanced courses but havn't taken the Basics. That is extremely rare. __________________________________________________________________________________ Is it? Even if the standard is the person who came out of a basic course with the weakest skills? To be fair this has to be the benchmark. __________________________________________________________________________________ Pete posted in another thread about a Pre Qualifier sorta like what Sully mentions above, some would be interested in that. Pete also posted in the same reply that is is extraordinarily impractical for various reasons.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Here's  what Pete said (Poll #5 Pg 2)

"Personally, I put a lot of time into learning and developing testing and evaluation methods. I would be delighted to evaluate anyone in any discipline in which I teach. It would take about four hours, and cost about $150. One condition, however, is that you have to accept the evaluation for what it is worth, and not whine about the results. Anyone interested?"

PeteG

Now if the standard Is set accordingly(see above) you'll address 3 of the reasons folks stated they won't train.
1. Cost  (less than half of a basic course)
2. Time  (only one day)  Run it concurrent with your Handgun Intro
3. Prerequisites

I know the value the basics had for me but this would seem to be a valid issue for some.

All just my opinion YMMV

Originally Posted By sully: I have thought about doing something like HK has done for their Instructor courses.  That is on the opening of the course there is a skills qualification course of fire and if you do not pass it cold, then you pack your bags and go home, and there is no refund of tuition.

About a year ago I started working a basic skills test into some of my carbine courses.  I have the students shoot a carbine qualification course "cold," then we score it, and the student gets the target.  The only purpose of that is to show him or her what they could do at that point in time [under conditions where I can deal with any inordinate despondency produced by the results].  Then we do another qualification course at the end of antoher period of instruction and some reps (this is not always done at the beginning and end of a course).  They invariably do much better, and they can see that what was very difficult for them two days ago is really very managable now.  

I'm not sure what HK accomplished by having people fail and running them off.  But I think it works if you show them where they are, and then show them how far they have come.

Let's be clear what a certificate of attendance is.  It is a statement that the individual was instructed for a stated period of time.  I may also imply the student was not asked to leave the course, and finished the course without shooting himself, but it does not necessarily mean that.  It is not "certification" that a given person knows or can do specified things.  Very, very few places will "certify" firearms training skills, and of those I know of who purport to, I suspect thier motives.

True "certification" would require a set of defined skills and criteria that was universally understood (if not universally accepted), and an agreed upon and accepted means of measuring those skills.  It would also have to expire in a fairly short time.  Even then, it would be about twelve seconds before some geek started "gaming" the process, and challenging the validity of the criteria and means of measurement if the results were that he was not Tactical-Tarzan.  Nobody wants the hassle.

It is true that people leave any given course with some having achieved more than others, but there is a general range one can reliably expect.  The problem is that some who did not achieve as much in the course continue to work with whatever they did get, while those that did better in the course let it atrophy.  (Half-life for firearms training without practice is about three weeks.)

I think I could put together a qualifier to see if someone knows specific gun-handling and manipulation skills, and through observation make a judgment about the degree to which they have internalized the universal safety rules.  That would work to go from "Carbine I" to "Carbine II."  But I do not believe people who start out believing they should get a "buy" past basic courses to go on to something else would either show up a day early or pay extra money for such an evaluation.  The bitch would then be "Why should I have to pay extra money to go to a qualifier?  I have been shooting for years.  I was a [ fill in blank  ].  They just want to take more of my money."

And if you "flunk" somebody, it is an even bet they will spend the next decade looking far and wide for reasons why you are an idiot and your program is no good, and telling everyone who will listen.  Once again, who needs the hassle.

Of course, this begs the question of how to convince people to enroll in a course who have no previous formal training, who believe they should be passed directly into second and thrid level courses, and won't come unless they are.  My response is, I do not think you can.  They are not coming.

My concern, therefore, is reserved for those who do come.

Some people who have prior shooting experience come because thier attitude and ego is such that they are not concerned about being considered "basic" or "advanced," and they are prepared to trust that something can be gained.   Some people who have prior shooting experience come because they are smart enough to take the word of EVERYBODY who can lay claim to any significant expertise in the subject that this is not a linear process (like 1st grade - 2nd grade - 3rd grade), and one will learn significant amounts in any half-decent  "basic" course of formal instruction, regardless of the length or quality of thier prior experience.  But the guy who thinks he's above it all is a lost cause.  (Just ask any instructor how difficult it is to do anything constructive with a policeman who is in a course only because he was ordered to be, and who owns a T-shirt some fool administrator gave him that says "SWAT" or "INSTRUCTOR" accross the back.)

I very much like Sully's analogy to the marital arts teacher.  It is UNTHINKABLE to go to one's master and say, "it's time to promote me."  That says, "I don't trust you to know when I am ready, or to tell me when I am.  I think you should listen to me about what I know."  Not only is this unbelieveably, throat-gagging, eye bulging, take-your-breath-away presumptuous, it is almost certainly inaccurate on both counts.  

There is occasionally one who will come into the dojo, and explain to all who will listen that they have studied ooo-wow with master hakkaruggi for many years.  They are welcomed, given a place in line, and politely handed their white belt.  They are generally never heard from again.  Experience passed down accross centuries, and validated every week, has convinced the masters that such people cannot learn, because they are not there to learn.  They are there for something else.  In my very limited personal experience, I  have yet to see an example where this was not exactly how it was.

I suppose a school or instructor just has to have confidence that he knows what he is talking about when he says the basic course is necessary, and that is that.  Those who do not agree will never know the basics.  Too bad; but not a problem I think I can solve.

Everybody wants to rush to be a ninja.

There is occasionally one who will come into the dojo, and explain to all who will listen that they have studied ooo-wow with master hakkaruggi for many years. They are welcomed, given a place in line, and politely handed their white belt. They are generally never heard from again. Experience passed down accross centuries, and validated every week, has convinced the masters that such people cannot learn, because they are not there to learn. They are there for something else. In my very limited personal experience, I have yet to see an example where this was not exactly how it was.

I can't figure out how a person(especially a "martial artist") can assume that a course with one instructor in 'basics' would somehow qualify him/her to attend an advanced level course at another school/with another teacher.There's just so many levels to 'argue' on there.

The only way I could 'see' it is if the teacher recommends a student to train  with a particular instructor.The teacher puts his/her reputation on the line in those circumstances,and usually knows the other instructor pretty well.

I think it's up to the teacher to decide if a student is ready for advanced classes.By the website,I just because I took Sully's 1/2  carbine I am 'ready'  to take carbine 3/4.I would say that is questionable. It might be 'nice' to take the advanced class to get a taste of the higher speed skills,but how would that hinder the rest of the students in the class?




bulletcatchR

I feel the need to add:

Most of us do not get enough trigger time, regardless of lifestyle, etc. To make matters worse, many of our local clubs/gun ranges don't allow the freedom to work on tactical movement, dynamic drills, or even rapid fire (ie. NSRs or boxdrills). Hence, we should not feel sheepish about taking the same course two or more times. In fact, we should consider it necessary. Dry practice at home just isn't the same. If we are honest with ourselves, we willgetmore out of the training.

Be well!

And that's Why I'm taking Pat Roger's Carbine course again for the second time and will take another of Greg's Defensive Edge Carbine 1 /11's class again.. Cause it's about mastering the basics. which I think is a life long pursuit.
Work on mastering the basics and let others worry about what classification you should be in.

As for the style/methodology issue I look at it like this. Shooting is a martial art.

If you had a black belt in Kung Fu and went to a Karate school they would not allow you to be taught as a black belt because your training is in Kung Fu.

You both can use your fist, feet, knees and elbows as weapons. But you use a different methodology. Not better, nor worse just different.

You both can fight and get the job done, just differently.

So when you train in another "school" of gun fighting you have to start at the bottom. You may learn faster becasue of previous experience but thats it. You will have to learn how to do things in the style of that school of shooting to progress.

Just my $.02

Is there a certain, self-assessed, level of marksmanship, or gun handling skills, that should be attained before even going to any "Basic" course?


Robert

Originally Posted By TonyF: Absolutely not. More often than not you'll program bad habits if you try to learn on your own. We have a couple of guys in our shooting circle that up until about four years ago had never owned or fired any type of firearm. They both bought handguns and immediately enrolled in a training class. They learned how to shoot properly *the first time* and became very accomplished shooters in a very short period of time becasue they didn't have to *un-learn* incorrect technique. They are two of the best shooters I know.

Ok, but where does one actually start and what is the correct order of progress?  I ask this question for my personal use.

I own two handguns and a few ARs, possess a CCP, and have absolutely zero formal training and haven't shot at all for years.  Why not?

1. There are no public ranges nearby,
2. The one indoor ranges in the area do not offer training, only time (along with a certain pushiness to clear you out to make time for the next shooter),
3. There's only so many times you shoot the floor well short of the target before you give up,
4. The indoor range I did drive far to (in Apopka) doesn't allow non-standing/sitting rifle positions,
5. Diagnosed with diabetes (complicated by asthma) that took a few years to stabilize, but at the cost of alot of muscle damage, torn rotator cuff, plantar fasciitus, light-sensitive vision, and poor memory (if you're not diabetic, read up on its effects).

So, where do I start when driving to an outdoor range is 90min+. each way (Kissimmee to Tenoroc) in good traffic?  There seems to be alot of arguement over half-life of firearms skills and the extent to which you must practice (not just this thread).  What constructive recommendation are there for those of us who do not have ready access to a place to practice?

Saying "you shouldn't be shooting" is not constructive.  Put in a situation where it's my life or someone else's, I'll worry about all the dead bystanders later.  Thing is, I don't want to hurt anyone unintentionally, but where do you go to take a class "cold"?  What can you practice/do when there are no ranges or you can't regularly get to them (I can't be alone)?

All the arguments concerning undertrained/-skilled students taking advanced course may be valid and I don't sign up for any class because I don't want to slow anyone else down who paid to learn, themselves, not wait on me.  That doesn't answer the question of how I get me up to speed under my circumstances.  How do I effectively get the prerequisites?  When you can fully answer that, then I believe you can complain about the underskilled.

If the option for people like me is we don't get to attend classes, are you really saying that there's supposed to be a huge number of firearms owners in the US who you desire to see unskilled but still shooting?  Lack of training isn't going to stop them.

None of this I say to ignite a war of words.  I work for local government in the field and have my fill of that on a daily basis.  I really want to know where it is a guy like me can get the prerequisites, so when I show up for a class I'm not holding the rest of you back.

Incidentally, my use of the term "you" in my previous post was meant as the collective "you".  Not really certain if it came across that way.

Originally Posted By TonyF: I can point to a number of courses where a complete novice can enroll in a basic three-day handgun class that starts from the baseline premise that the student has no knowledge at all. Most *basic* handgun classes are organized along those lines.

Being a novice, though, one of my frustrations is in not knowing which courses are the good courses.  I've already noted that the term "basic" seems to be bandied about without much relation to a course actually being in need of no prior learning.

I'm pretty sure you mean you can point to types of classes, rather than actual classes, here.  But, if you did know of classes, I wouldn't refuse to look them up.  As an aside, not speaking of "knowledge", but how much shooting experience (rounds down range) do classes assume you have?  I've probably shot less than 2K round, collectively, through everything I own.

As to logistics (driving distance, etc.), that is something that is sometimes beyond anyones control. There are however, options. One of which is that if you can find a local gun club that will host a course, there are a number of instructors who will travel to your area. If getting to a range is difficult due to distance or availability, lifestyle or physical disability, a number of the fundamnetal skills taught in the basic three-day classes can be practiced at home. To name a few, dry fire practice, the presentation (drawstroke), turns and footwork.

Realistically, I'd be most interested in courses which teach, if it's handgun, the way I carry, but so far that seems unlikely.  I'm attempting to puzzle out in my lack-of-knowledge mind if I should rather attempt to locate an instructor who could tailor my education or accept anything I'd learn regarding holster use would have little value in the day-to-day for me.  As you've alluded to, though, not knowing what I don't know, that's a hard decision to come to.

There's only one gun club in the region, period.  I've worked with one of the officers for eight years who's always said, "whenever you want to come for a visit..." that never seems to happen.  On two different occasions, individuals have attempted to build a club/range in my county, only to have the proposal die before the (elected) county commission, which also happens to be the development board.  This is the same jurisdiction where new sheriff's run on the "gun owner friendly" platform and always seem to change their position after election.  Thge same place our Tax Collector was removed by the Governor.  By the way, there are two FBI investigations of our government for various reasons.  ...And that's about all I can tolerate saying and still conduct a civil conversation.

About physical disabilities. You'll have to discuss the particulars with the instructor. However, every instructor I know makes it clear to the students that if they have some sort of physical ailment or disability to let them know. They will do their best to accommodate you or at the very worst, you simply don't participate in those drills that you can't phyiscally perform. You will still learn by observation.

Fair enough, but I won't know what I can or can't do until I try it.  One thing I have noticed that concerns me is that I can no longer hold my carbine to my cheek for very long before my arm muscles begin to shake (I lost 50% mass).  The torn rotator came from rehab using 5lb free weights (which I then had to go into a three-month rehab from my rehab for -- which only reads as funny).  So, I'm thinking I need to learn a technique for quick target acquisition and firing.

ETA: I've noticed that when you write down your honest assessment of capability, it reads alot of like whining.  I wonder if this limits the degree to which folks perform honest self-evaluations.

Originally Posted By -Watcher-: All the arguments concerning undertrained/-skilled students taking advanced course may be valid and I don't sign up for any class because I don't want to slow anyone else down who paid to learn, themselves, not wait on me.  That doesn't answer the question of how I get me up to speed under my circumstances.  How do I effectively get the prerequisites?  When you can fully answer that, then I believe you can complain about the underskilled. If the option for people like me is we don't get to attend classes, are you really saying that there's supposed to be a huge number of firearms owners in the US who you desire to see unskilled but still shooting?  Lack of training isn't going to stop them.

Watcher,
I think you are missing the original point of this thread.

There is a problem in gun culture where everybody thinks they are "above average" so few want to stoop to the level of taking a "basic" class.  This problem is further compounded when someone has had a few classes previously but then wants to take an "advanced" class from a different school or instructor without taking the core prerequisites.

Your problem seems to be just the oposite.  You want an intro class to get you started.  Check for NRA instructors in your area.  There are also other gun schools in FL but you may have to travel a few hours.  The most important thing is that you make it a priority to take a class.

Originally Posted By ShackleMeNot: Watcher, I think you are missing the original point of this thread.

I did sort of wander away from it, didn't I?  I suppose I identified with the guy who holds up the class.  My apologies for hijacking.

I just read this entire thread and realize I don't know or remember anything about the basics even though I shoot pistols and AR's when I can and have shot firearms all my life.

I need to take a basic course, but with some of the stuff mentioned as being basic skills, I'd be afraid of being the slow "dufus" holding up the class. Where I live it would cost way too much to go to any classes that are thousands of miles away so I'm stuck with ccw instructors most likely and that doesn't cover carbines.

I'm not sure, but do the training schools/classes for a particular area/region get posted in the "home town" forums so those of us living in the boonies can find one that would be more convenient?  

Thank you, that's a great idea.  I also liked the info you posted as it made me think about getting better. I have the safety things down, it's the other stuff I need to get proficient with.  I have a small range on my property but it is pistol range at best and shooting the AR too much disturbs the neighbors.

I get that all the time. It seems that some people just do not want to be bothered by attending the 'basic' classes. They forget that in those basic classes, you are exposed to the fundamentals of the skillsets and training that you are attending. In order to advance, you have to solidify your foundation, not jump over gaps.


Nicely done

What about holding a qualification day in which anyone with any background can come and be assesed and tested to see if they meet the required skills and doctrine for your advanced classes. If they pass they get a equal skill level certificate or some such that would give them access to your classes without starting at the bottom. if they fail they get given a list of what they need to know and a list of your classes or classes you would readily accepted as being equal to your own?

The idea being that no teaching takes place on this day its purely an assesment of the required skills. Make it a bit cheaper than your classes and you might get people happy to sign up to it.