Firearms training: Old NFO lays it on the line

 

Friend, fellow blogger and fellow author Jim Curtis, known in the blogosphere as Old NFO, has written a blunt, to-the-point article pointing out the many problems with modern firearms training.  Here are a few excerpts.

I’m worried about the division I’m seeing becoming more and more prevalent in the gun world, where you are judged by who you’ve trained with, what latest plastic fantastic or custom gun you’re carrying in the latest holster, while firing the latest and greatest super ammo, while being able to in W seconds fire X rounds into Y square inches at Z yards. Or how to shoot your AR out of your car, etc.

. . .

I’ve also heard instructors say NRA training will get you killed on the street.

Um, NRA training is designed to be BASIC training, not get you your CCW or anything else due to the differences state to state… And a basic course is what everybody is now requiring that people have to take just about any course.

BUT, what are being left behind are John/Jane Q Public that carry a pistol for self defense or want pistol courses that help them to get better. Rangemasters, Mas Ayoob, and a few others offer basic courses that stress BASIC skill sets, of grip, draw, presentation and sight picture, and mindset. But they aren’t cheap.

The other ‘mantra’ that seems to be getting louder (again) is that if your gun doesn’t have a caliber that starts with a 4, you should shut up and go home, you can’t be effective. I’ve seen people basically get laughed at in various forums for carrying .380s or .32 or .38 pistols, or ‘really stupid’ to carry .22 or .22 magnum pistols.

. . .

Have instructors become so wrapped around the ‘tacticool’ agenda that they are leaving most shooters with no good training if you’re not an LEO or operator? I’m beginning to think so ... Most CCW folks don’t have thousands of dollars to spend on gun after gun, course after course, and don’t shoot a thousand rounds a month, or five hundred… I’d say the average CCW person is probably down around 100-200 rounds a month maybe less, especially now with the dearth of ammunition. And they’re shooting it with what they have… and can afford or actually operate. Some people (especially females, elderly or disabled) can’t rack a slide on a 9mm, much less a .40 or a .45, much less control a pistol in that caliber to get more than one or maybe two rounds on target without issues. But they can shoot/control .22s or .380s. Or that old .32 or .38 revolver that may not have all the bluing, but it still works well.

. . .

Maybe it’s time to look closer to home, to those local instructors that teach part time for not much money, because they want to share knowledge, and are willing to work with students on a case by case basis. They may not have one or more pages of ‘qualifications’ but they teach because they believe in what they are doing, and by and large are pretty cotton picking good too!

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

I've seen the same issues Jim has, and they're important.  A great deal of what's taught in many shooting classes has little or nothing to do with the average person's basic need to defend themselves with a firearm.  It's a lot of fun to learn, and I've enjoyed the courses I've taken, but let's face it:  most of us aren't ninjas, or operators, or assassins.  We won't ever use that sort of training in real life.  What we need are the basics, properly taught, emphasized and re-emphasized, and drilled until we know them inside-out, back-to-front and upside-down.

• Sight picture.
• Grip.
• Stance.
• Trigger control.

Get those right, and you've solved 90% of your weapon handling issues.  Get them wrong, and no matter how tacticool your training may have been, you probably won't get rounds on target quickly and accurately enough to save your favorite tuchus.  When I train disabled shooters, as I have for decades, those are the things we work on until they've got them right.  Only then do we go on to more tactical considerations.  (For details of that, see this article.)

In case anyone thinks I'm criticizing mainstream training without knowing what I'm talking about;  apart from military and civilian firearms training and experience in Africa, in the USA I've attended three courses - basic, intermediate and advanced - with Massad Ayoob;  a handgun and a rifle course at Thunder Ranch;  the Advanced Handgun course at Chapman Academy;  and several short courses with Jerry and Kay Miculek in Louisiana.  I valued and enjoyed each and every one of those courses, but I'll be the first to admit that they're a lot more than the average person needs for basic home and personal defense.  They're for enthusiasts.  I can no longer manage such courses, thanks to physical disability, but I'd do one again in a heartbeat if I could cope with its demands.  If you can do that and have the money to spare, I think you'll benefit from it.  Just be aware that in today's economy, for a week-long course, ammunition, travel and hotel costs, etc., you're probably talking several thousand dollars.

Jim also talks about ammunition selection in his article.  In today's market, with the desperate ongoing shortage of defensive ammunition, it's often very hard to lay your hands on the "best" solution;  but there are viable alternatives.  I carry Buffalo Bore wadcutters in my .38 Special and .44 Special snubbies, and don't feel in the least under-gunned with them.  Wadcutters have a long and distinguished defensive track record "on the street", as the late Jim Cirillo (a gunfighter if ever anyone earned that title) was fond of pointing out.  Hunting rounds can also serve for personal defense.  For example, at Blogorado last weekend, I was shooting Littlestone .44 Special ammunition with a 260gr. WFN (wide flat nose) hard-cast bullet, loaded to the upper edge of pressure limits for that round.  It's my standard general-purpose load in that cartridge, and in .44 Magnum handguns too.  Out of a 2¾"-barreled revolver, doing about 870 feet per second, it smacked down steel plates with authority.  I'll trust it to take any game animal up to 200-300 pounds in weight, given proper bullet placement.  If it can handle animals like that, there's no reason to think it won't handle human assailants in the same size range with equal aplomb.  (Just look at the track record of the similar .44-40 round in the Old West, where it was renowned as a fight-stopper from rifles or revolvers.)

I think Jim has the right of it.  Get the basics right, keep it simple, and you'll have solved most of your potential problems.

Peter