jglsprings
New member
Ahh yes, the ISIS suspended bridge painter scenario... one of the classics.
Amazed at the ignorance
- Thread starter sliponby
- Start date
Ahh yes, the ISIS suspended bridge painter scenario... one of the classics.
g.willikers
New member
There's some good force on force videos from First Person Defender on youtube.
And loads of stuff on the Personal Defense Network, too.
Check them out, they're free and have lots of info.
While they're no substitute for being there, they're lots better than the level of training most folks get - near zero.
And loads of stuff on the Personal Defense Network, too.
Check them out, they're free and have lots of info.
While they're no substitute for being there, they're lots better than the level of training most folks get - near zero.
stagpanther
New member
I'm the first to admit that I mouth off a lot here--but I try to always tell folks I'm not an expert--I just like shooting a lot and have opinions based on my own experience. I suspect that is the case with most shooters everywhere. BUT--I also get the irritation of a having a sales pitch interrupted--whether by an expert or idiot--it's not a good thing.
I've been shooting for a long time, nearly fifty years. But I'm always learning something new. I recently had an experience that gave me a different viewpoint on the subject (and no, I didn't get in a gunfight).
We had a company outing a couple of weeks ago and one of the activities, believe it or not, was skeet shooting. Any employee who cared to got to try it for about a half-dozen rounds. It was interesting to see young women who'd never so much as touched a gun before step up and break the birds, though usually not on the first shot. There were two good coaches and it was purely recreational. But it was also shooting at a moving target. When did you ever do that with a handgun?
I suggested to the coach, who was an easy-going older fellow (probably younger then me) that women make better students. The simple reason is that they listen to the instructor. He agreed.
The exercise would probably be a great confidence builder, too, for someone who'd never fired a gun before. Also, I'm of the general opinion that the so-called complexity of an automatic pistol just isn't there. Sure, it's more complicated than a revolver but did you ever try figuring out a sewing machine?
We had a company outing a couple of weeks ago and one of the activities, believe it or not, was skeet shooting. Any employee who cared to got to try it for about a half-dozen rounds. It was interesting to see young women who'd never so much as touched a gun before step up and break the birds, though usually not on the first shot. There were two good coaches and it was purely recreational. But it was also shooting at a moving target. When did you ever do that with a handgun?
I suggested to the coach, who was an easy-going older fellow (probably younger then me) that women make better students. The simple reason is that they listen to the instructor. He agreed.
The exercise would probably be a great confidence builder, too, for someone who'd never fired a gun before. Also, I'm of the general opinion that the so-called complexity of an automatic pistol just isn't there. Sure, it's more complicated than a revolver but did you ever try figuring out a sewing machine?
Not all experienced instructors would agree with the myth about women making better students than men. 
Background: I'm in my 12th or 13th year as a professional defensive handgun instructor, and have taught classes all over the country under the "Cornered Cat" banner. You can see my training resume on my website under 'about the author'; it shows around a thousand hours of training as a student. I've also spent at least ten times that much time assisting in other people's classes over the years, because I enjoy coaching and really enjoy learning from other instructors' teaching styles. It's safe to say that I've taught a lot of people to shoot and I've watched many people learning to shoot under the instruction of others.
Here's what I think about women making better students than men:
It is not true.
This is what is true: truly new students make much faster and more impressive progress than allegedly “new” students who aren’t new to firearms at all. People who have spent a lifetime developing bad habits will need some time to erase those bad habits before they can learn good ones. This is true for both men and women. People who start with a blank slate, having never handled a firearm before, usually make very rapid or even dramatic progress under the tutelage of a competent instructor. This, also, is true for both men and women.
When we compare apples to apples—brand new shooters to other brand new shooters; novice shooters with existing bad habits to other novice shooters with existing bad habits—we see almost no difference at all between men and women in firearms classes. It is only when we conflate the two, and compare the truly novice female to the badly-taught or untaught male that we see the dramatic, measurable difference in skillsets between male and female “new” students.
Not only is the saying not true in a skillset sense, it is also not true in a “good student” sense. I have worked with both men and women who are good students, and with both men and women who are poor students. If I wanted to make a sex-based rule about this, I would say that women who have a bad attitude about learning to shoot do tend to do a slightly better job hiding that fact from the instructor than similarly-resistant male students do—and that’s about it. But pleasant outward behavior does not mean these resistant students are getting what they need.
Anyway, having spent time teaching both women-only classes and co-ed classes, it appalls me that so many people so readily dismiss their male students as being unwilling or unable to learn to shoot. It's been my experience that willing men make excellent students -- and can usually shoot just as well as women from the very beginning.
pax
Background: I'm in my 12th or 13th year as a professional defensive handgun instructor, and have taught classes all over the country under the "Cornered Cat" banner. You can see my training resume on my website under 'about the author'; it shows around a thousand hours of training as a student. I've also spent at least ten times that much time assisting in other people's classes over the years, because I enjoy coaching and really enjoy learning from other instructors' teaching styles. It's safe to say that I've taught a lot of people to shoot and I've watched many people learning to shoot under the instruction of others.
Here's what I think about women making better students than men:
It is not true.
This is what is true: truly new students make much faster and more impressive progress than allegedly “new” students who aren’t new to firearms at all. People who have spent a lifetime developing bad habits will need some time to erase those bad habits before they can learn good ones. This is true for both men and women. People who start with a blank slate, having never handled a firearm before, usually make very rapid or even dramatic progress under the tutelage of a competent instructor. This, also, is true for both men and women.
When we compare apples to apples—brand new shooters to other brand new shooters; novice shooters with existing bad habits to other novice shooters with existing bad habits—we see almost no difference at all between men and women in firearms classes. It is only when we conflate the two, and compare the truly novice female to the badly-taught or untaught male that we see the dramatic, measurable difference in skillsets between male and female “new” students.
Not only is the saying not true in a skillset sense, it is also not true in a “good student” sense. I have worked with both men and women who are good students, and with both men and women who are poor students. If I wanted to make a sex-based rule about this, I would say that women who have a bad attitude about learning to shoot do tend to do a slightly better job hiding that fact from the instructor than similarly-resistant male students do—and that’s about it. But pleasant outward behavior does not mean these resistant students are getting what they need.
Anyway, having spent time teaching both women-only classes and co-ed classes, it appalls me that so many people so readily dismiss their male students as being unwilling or unable to learn to shoot. It's been my experience that willing men make excellent students -- and can usually shoot just as well as women from the very beginning.
pax
stagpanther
New member
I don't think it's so much the sex of the student as it is what kind of thought-processor they are. I was once a flight instructor for gliding sports and the FAA's FOI test has some pretty good material in it regarding the different types of thought processing people
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Try training a couple (male / female). While they can be nice, you sometimes get the husband bent out of shape when his ideas don't fly or the female half is better. Seen that.
But it can work, I took out a nice Canadian couple and they were great. Their hobby was baking and I got a big box of pastry!
Pax is probably correct given the covariance of perceived knowledge contributing to some problems. Then one would have to separate out male assertiveness in spite of evidence.
But it can work, I took out a nice Canadian couple and they were great. Their hobby was baking and I got a big box of pastry!
Pax is probably correct given the covariance of perceived knowledge contributing to some problems. Then one would have to separate out male assertiveness in spite of evidence.
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
Not necessarily bad advice. The "center mass" of an opposing threat is lower than you think. Moreover, the pelvic girdle is a lot larger and moves less than the head or even upper body in a violent encounter. I know this for sure, as I've programmed literally hundreds of simulator scenarios and the head zone always moves more than the pelvic girdle zone.
A hit in the pelvic girdle may not be an instant fight stopper, but it WILL negatively affect your opponent's ability to accurately return fire. It will certainly affect him more than a shot that goes over his head.
In combat, most shooters shoot high. Those that actually use their sights tend to see the front sight OVER the rear sight instead of properly aligned with the top of the rear sight. That's why the military went to peep sights more than a century ago. If aiming for center of chest, they may shoot over the opponent. If aiming for the pelvic girdle, they are likely to hit the chest if their shots go high.
FWIW, I also teach officers to keep their weapons low, either held behind the leg or at low ready, depending on the threat level. If they must react to a threat, bringing the weapon up is faster than bringing it down from the "Sabrina" position (held alongside head, pointed up). If the officer shoots prematurely, the bullet will go into the ground in front of the threat, possibly disrupting his attack, and possibly ricocheting and hitting him, with the recoil bringing the weapon up onto line, as opposed to bringing the weapon down to engage the threat, where an early shot will go above the opponent's head with little effect, and the recoil will throw the gun up, delaying an accurate follow-up shot.
Just my $0.02 worth.
I generally find women easier to train. Their difficulty is lack of grip strength (hard to do DA trigger pull) or ability to pull the slide.
BTW, I used to teach ready rest which is gun held down (I'm guessing 45 degrees). No full sabrina or half-sabrina. That's movie stuff. Most useful if you want the actor/actress' face and a firearm in one screen shot.
BTW, I used to teach ready rest which is gun held down (I'm guessing 45 degrees). No full sabrina or half-sabrina. That's movie stuff. Most useful if you want the actor/actress' face and a firearm in one screen shot.
It's not "aiming"
It's rapid fire point shooting and it works very well.
I learned to do it over 50 years ago with a 357 revolver (shooting 38 Spcls), and could "stitch" a standard silhouette target from navel to head with 6 shots, drawing from the hip, in 4-5 seconds, with all shots in the "kill zone"
It's done when you don't have time to "aim"
Yes, Snyper, the point shooting method you describe definitely has merit and is a tactic to use in a close-in defensive situation. However, as I pointed out in earlier posts, with new shooters you must keep it simple and instruct them on all the basics that most of us take for granted.
Once they've mastered the fundamentals (proper grip, stance, sight alignment/picture) and progress in their training, then you can move to more advanced tactics such as rapid fire point shooting.
Moving too fast in the training of a new shooter would be like trying to teach calculus to a first grader.
Once they've mastered the fundamentals (proper grip, stance, sight alignment/picture) and progress in their training, then you can move to more advanced tactics such as rapid fire point shooting.
Moving too fast in the training of a new shooter would be like trying to teach calculus to a first grader.
Back to the big box gun shop.
When I bought my pocket pistol, the guy selling it to me was somebody that I have talked to many times, and bought another gun from in the past. The salesman's co-worker (new guy), walked up and said that I needed several extra magazines with my S&W Bodyguard because the magazines wear out after 200 to 300 rounds. It looked like the guy that I was talking to wanted to strangle the other salesman. Another employee heard the comment, saw the reaction of the guy I was talking to, and asked the new guy to help him in another area. I have never seen the "new guy" again in that store. I stop there at least once a week.
When I bought my pocket pistol, the guy selling it to me was somebody that I have talked to many times, and bought another gun from in the past. The salesman's co-worker (new guy), walked up and said that I needed several extra magazines with my S&W Bodyguard because the magazines wear out after 200 to 300 rounds. It looked like the guy that I was talking to wanted to strangle the other salesman. Another employee heard the comment, saw the reaction of the guy I was talking to, and asked the new guy to help him in another area. I have never seen the "new guy" again in that store. I stop there at least once a week.
So, it's bad to teach an effective technique that uses the natural reaction to gunfire to a student who needs a first time result?
As said, most of the time, the gun will sit in a drawer. New gun buyers get the gun, shoot a box or two, consider themselves adequate, and move on. They now have a security blanket to soothe their distressed feelings watching their neighborhood/town changing in ways they don't want and can't fix.
Most are trapped in their home and can no longer sell for what it would take to move. It's an older neighborhood, as their contemporaries pass on, the kids - who wouldn't live there on a bet - are renting it out. From the perspective of a property owner, the neighbor starts getting sketchy.
"We need a gun!" becomes an answer.
Spending hours at a range or joining a club isn't their cup of tea - they just want something to intimidate the potential home intruder. Frankly, all the boring classroom exercise and paper shooting isn't getting them up to speed.
The old jarhead put it in a working perspective for them - it may have been "rude" to intrude on the conversation, but - no telling maybe he was a multiple tour combat veteran (unlike the poster who claims all Marines aren't all that.) He's been there done that, the functional results of training boiled down to how to put down the target as quickly and effectively as possible.
That IS NOT the point of NRA handgun training - one that is implicity expressed in their choice of targets vs those used in shoot-move competition. NRA prefers the non political bullseye, competition uses silhouettes. Images of human beings, to be more blunt.
That line in the sand is why so many won't go to NRA classes - the effective point of the teaching is the fundamentals of precision shooting, whereas CCW and other instructors focus on effective defense against aggressive humans.
How the couple received the ol jarheads advice is something else - typically we do see it as an intrusion into the conversation. I sell auto parts, and it happens about a dozen times daily. For the most part I don't refer to the mechanic who might be standing there - it's HIS decision to get involved based on what his schedule is that day. Many do, tho. As for the others, the sooner you can disengage the better. And sometimes the phone won't ring soon enough.
The point tho is that there are some who only have more ignorance to express - but - on the rare instance, you get a different point of view that causes the listener to rethink what they were trying to solve.
Me, .22 International target shooter in High School, doing moderately well. Those trigger discipline skills transferred very nicely to marksmanship on a mowed grass range. But - as training scenarios kept pointing out - hostile moving targets are another discipline entirely. Instead of a steady bullseye waiting to be perforated, the live human is doing everything they can to overcome your skill and defeat you.
If you have to use the natural recoil of the weapon and target the pelvis first, working up, why not? It's going to happen anyway, you don't have to manhandle the handgun, you can drive it and use it's natural recoil tendencies in your favor. For the new shooter, they learn a natural and aggressive technique that will inspire confidence in their immediate lethality and which does work. Combat shooting is something entirely different from square range target shooting as I learned 22 years USAR.
At this point I have to ask - how much combat shooting experience does the OP have? Or, less politely, how much do they know about it to question a tactic?
Ol jarhead may have been doing everyone a favor - he gave the buyers a reality check about what they really plan to use the weapon for, and introduced the idea that maybe it's not going be what they think. NRA isn't combat - even the targets represent that.
As said, most of the time, the gun will sit in a drawer. New gun buyers get the gun, shoot a box or two, consider themselves adequate, and move on. They now have a security blanket to soothe their distressed feelings watching their neighborhood/town changing in ways they don't want and can't fix.
Most are trapped in their home and can no longer sell for what it would take to move. It's an older neighborhood, as their contemporaries pass on, the kids - who wouldn't live there on a bet - are renting it out. From the perspective of a property owner, the neighbor starts getting sketchy.
"We need a gun!" becomes an answer.
Spending hours at a range or joining a club isn't their cup of tea - they just want something to intimidate the potential home intruder. Frankly, all the boring classroom exercise and paper shooting isn't getting them up to speed.
The old jarhead put it in a working perspective for them - it may have been "rude" to intrude on the conversation, but - no telling maybe he was a multiple tour combat veteran (unlike the poster who claims all Marines aren't all that.) He's been there done that, the functional results of training boiled down to how to put down the target as quickly and effectively as possible.
That IS NOT the point of NRA handgun training - one that is implicity expressed in their choice of targets vs those used in shoot-move competition. NRA prefers the non political bullseye, competition uses silhouettes. Images of human beings, to be more blunt.
That line in the sand is why so many won't go to NRA classes - the effective point of the teaching is the fundamentals of precision shooting, whereas CCW and other instructors focus on effective defense against aggressive humans.
How the couple received the ol jarheads advice is something else - typically we do see it as an intrusion into the conversation. I sell auto parts, and it happens about a dozen times daily. For the most part I don't refer to the mechanic who might be standing there - it's HIS decision to get involved based on what his schedule is that day. Many do, tho. As for the others, the sooner you can disengage the better. And sometimes the phone won't ring soon enough.
The point tho is that there are some who only have more ignorance to express - but - on the rare instance, you get a different point of view that causes the listener to rethink what they were trying to solve.
Me, .22 International target shooter in High School, doing moderately well. Those trigger discipline skills transferred very nicely to marksmanship on a mowed grass range. But - as training scenarios kept pointing out - hostile moving targets are another discipline entirely. Instead of a steady bullseye waiting to be perforated, the live human is doing everything they can to overcome your skill and defeat you.
If you have to use the natural recoil of the weapon and target the pelvis first, working up, why not? It's going to happen anyway, you don't have to manhandle the handgun, you can drive it and use it's natural recoil tendencies in your favor. For the new shooter, they learn a natural and aggressive technique that will inspire confidence in their immediate lethality and which does work. Combat shooting is something entirely different from square range target shooting as I learned 22 years USAR.
At this point I have to ask - how much combat shooting experience does the OP have? Or, less politely, how much do they know about it to question a tactic?
Ol jarhead may have been doing everyone a favor - he gave the buyers a reality check about what they really plan to use the weapon for, and introduced the idea that maybe it's not going be what they think. NRA isn't combat - even the targets represent that.