On a local forum, there is a guy who runs his own firearms training. The training group is one of those groups that believes in one day courses. Single day courses work fine for very basic training, but there are multiple courses they offer that could be considered to go beyond the very basic elements. There is significant research by professionals like Ron Avery that indicate that the fewer the days of training, the less information can be retained. If you are given a massive information dump in one day and then given 20 minutes here and 15 minutes there to test it all out, you're likely not going to remember all of it four months from now. I've found that the minimum time for an actual gunfighter type course (which they do) is two full days, with ideal lengths at 3-5 days. Many groups limit it to 2 days for the sake of fitting them in on weekends, which is somewhat of a necessity to get people to train since a lot of people won't take a day of vacation to go to training.
Now, reviews of this group are generally positive. I suspect that they're a decent enough basic level training group. I know through the forum that the guy that runs it, Erik, is lacking in some knowledge areas where he tries to be an expert, and SHOULD be an expert based on what he is teaching.
We have another group in town that does the same thing, and they also do precision rifle shooting with a one day course, which is just asinine.
Anywho, I would encourage people to look at after action reviews, or AARs of training before they take it. AARs are great for training and preparation, and they are a great way to exchange information. Even more than that, they're a great way to evaluate the training before ever taking it. The problem is learning to decipher the information.
I rarely read a bad AAR. Most people who take the time to write an AAR liked the course, and those that didn't like the training just won't do anything and don't care enough to make it known. What happens is that you tend to get a lot of people who don't know how to evaluate their training, and instead are just happy to have gotten to take a trip to Tactical Fantasy Band Camp and do something they've never done. The way to evaluate this information is to read what they have written and to interpret what they are actually saying. Did the course actually make them think and learn, or are they simply commenting on how much fun they had?
Below is a video that illustrates my point. This video review/AAR is a good review of someone who doesn't have a lot of experience or knowledge, and if you read his website, you'll see he's sort of a "fringe" person. The video points out a number of things that the shooter does that indicates improper mindset and some ignorance. What goes beyond that is that you learn to read into the fact that the difficulties that he had were not adequately policed by the trainer. What this guy did is something that I as a trainer prefer students to NOT do.
So, here's the video:
http://ift.tt/1tDH5qT
Let's break this down bit by bit...
In the start, he details that he's using an AR pistol with a 6.75" barrel chambered in .300BLK. First of all, using an AR pistol is not ideal for a rifle course where you are shooting out to 100yds. It's understandable to want to use one while you are waiting for an NFA stamp, but ever since the ATF gave Tim from Military Arms Channel a letter stating that you can shoulder a pistol, everyone is just buying the Sig brace and using it as a flimsy stock. The barrel length is extremely short, even for .300BLK. The .300BLK was optimized for the 9" barrel, and a 6.75" barrel is 25% shorter than that. Gas pressure is exponential, which is why velocity loss in SBRs tends to increase dramatically as you get shorter and shorter. A 6.75" barrel is also obnoxious to other shooters. With both training groups that I work with, we banned anything under 10", with the exception of 9" .300BLK barrels, and G36C barrels (on LE guns). The reason being that the concussion for super short SBRs causes sinus headaches.
Case in point as to why:
The barrel he used was from Ice Arms. From the narrator's blog, he wrote this:
Basically, he knowingly bought a barrel from a company that has documented consistent quality control issues. If you intentionally buy something from a company that you know has problems, you have nothing to be upset about if your rifle won't work. I suspect that his rifle is likely over-gassed by way of a larger gas port, which is a technique commonly used by lower quality gun companies. That is just based on experience though, and is only an educated guess.
At 0:35 on the video, you see a guy doing a little side-to-side dance while he reloads. This technique has been taught ad-nauseum in the past by people who don't know any better. They claim that it keeps you mobile and we all know that a moving target is harder to hit. Well, when you dancing around in an area the width of a patio door, you're really not a moving target. What you'll notice is that the shooter is obviously having difficulties because he's dividing his attention and doing multiple tasks at once. He's consciously thinking about moving while also consciously attempting to remove a magazine from a pouch and then manipulating the weapon. Think of how much faster the reload could have been performed if he had just stopped and focused on the reload. There is a saying: "Shoot when you are shooting, move when you are moving, reload when you are reloading." This means that if you are doing a deliberate action, you will best accomplish it if you actually only do that one thing. This refers heavily to unnatural actions while attempting to perform mechanical or divided attention skills. If you are walking, you can shoot. If you are running, you cannot shoot effectively. If you are walking forward you can likely reload just as fast as when standing still. However, side-to-side lateral movement is not conventional or natural movement, so you must think about it and thus cannot effectively manipulate your gun.
My point will be reiterated in a moment...
At 1:16 he talks about his reloads that he used where he had about 40 of them fail to fire. He documents this in his blog. This is why you DO NOT use hand loads in gunfighting courses. Precision rifle training is the only acceptable exception.
At 1:50 he has finally had so many malfunctions that he has to transition to pistol. He engages targets from 40yds to 100yds with the pistol. If you have absolutely no other choice, you can make this work if you have the training. If you have alternatives, you have no business engaging a target beyond 50yds with a pistol. The average 9mm drops 12" at 100yds, so you can imagine what a slower .40 or .45 would do. Ballistics also take a nose dive at those ranges. The ideal option is to perform malfunction clearance on the rifle. If the ammo is all bad, ditch the mag and put in a new one.
At 2:19 he goes into a remedial malfunction clearance action. WHILE MOVING. Look at how much difficulty he's having with doing the manipulations. As I stated before, divided attention causes problems. The ideal response should be to run to cover and get down, stop, and do the manipulation. If not that, stop in place and sort it out. If you are far enough away to need to do the clearance instead of transitioning to sidearm, your best advantage is to do whatever you can to get the rifle up and running as fast as possible. When you watch, you see that it takes him something like 20-30 seconds (estimate if you take into account the slow-motion portion) to perform the manipulation. A properly trained shooter can clear a double-feed/Type-3 malfunction in ~10-15 seconds. When seconds count, doubling your time because you want to prance around is ridiculous.
Point of all this is that I learned a lot about this training group based on this AAR. What I get is that the trainer is jamming a bunch of info into a short period of time to give everyone a "taste". This amounts to gaming or play, not legitimate long term training. If top level trainers need at least two days to train people who to shoot while moving, why would lower-end instructors think that they can build a better mousetrap? This is an example of a question that you should ask yourself when you see or read something that deviates or stands out as being questionable.
Food for thought is all.
Now, reviews of this group are generally positive. I suspect that they're a decent enough basic level training group. I know through the forum that the guy that runs it, Erik, is lacking in some knowledge areas where he tries to be an expert, and SHOULD be an expert based on what he is teaching.
We have another group in town that does the same thing, and they also do precision rifle shooting with a one day course, which is just asinine.
Anywho, I would encourage people to look at after action reviews, or AARs of training before they take it. AARs are great for training and preparation, and they are a great way to exchange information. Even more than that, they're a great way to evaluate the training before ever taking it. The problem is learning to decipher the information.
I rarely read a bad AAR. Most people who take the time to write an AAR liked the course, and those that didn't like the training just won't do anything and don't care enough to make it known. What happens is that you tend to get a lot of people who don't know how to evaluate their training, and instead are just happy to have gotten to take a trip to Tactical Fantasy Band Camp and do something they've never done. The way to evaluate this information is to read what they have written and to interpret what they are actually saying. Did the course actually make them think and learn, or are they simply commenting on how much fun they had?
Below is a video that illustrates my point. This video review/AAR is a good review of someone who doesn't have a lot of experience or knowledge, and if you read his website, you'll see he's sort of a "fringe" person. The video points out a number of things that the shooter does that indicates improper mindset and some ignorance. What goes beyond that is that you learn to read into the fact that the difficulties that he had were not adequately policed by the trainer. What this guy did is something that I as a trainer prefer students to NOT do.
So, here's the video:
http://ift.tt/1tDH5qT
Let's break this down bit by bit...
In the start, he details that he's using an AR pistol with a 6.75" barrel chambered in .300BLK. First of all, using an AR pistol is not ideal for a rifle course where you are shooting out to 100yds. It's understandable to want to use one while you are waiting for an NFA stamp, but ever since the ATF gave Tim from Military Arms Channel a letter stating that you can shoulder a pistol, everyone is just buying the Sig brace and using it as a flimsy stock. The barrel length is extremely short, even for .300BLK. The .300BLK was optimized for the 9" barrel, and a 6.75" barrel is 25% shorter than that. Gas pressure is exponential, which is why velocity loss in SBRs tends to increase dramatically as you get shorter and shorter. A 6.75" barrel is also obnoxious to other shooters. With both training groups that I work with, we banned anything under 10", with the exception of 9" .300BLK barrels, and G36C barrels (on LE guns). The reason being that the concussion for super short SBRs causes sinus headaches.
Case in point as to why:
The barrel he used was from Ice Arms. From the narrator's blog, he wrote this:
Quote:
My 6.75***8243; barrel is from Ice Arms, and there was quite a debate on the build quality and accuracy of their barrels. They do not have a good reputation in the 5.56 community, but so far everyone I know who has purchased their 300 Blackout barrels has been pleased. |
Basically, he knowingly bought a barrel from a company that has documented consistent quality control issues. If you intentionally buy something from a company that you know has problems, you have nothing to be upset about if your rifle won't work. I suspect that his rifle is likely over-gassed by way of a larger gas port, which is a technique commonly used by lower quality gun companies. That is just based on experience though, and is only an educated guess.
At 0:35 on the video, you see a guy doing a little side-to-side dance while he reloads. This technique has been taught ad-nauseum in the past by people who don't know any better. They claim that it keeps you mobile and we all know that a moving target is harder to hit. Well, when you dancing around in an area the width of a patio door, you're really not a moving target. What you'll notice is that the shooter is obviously having difficulties because he's dividing his attention and doing multiple tasks at once. He's consciously thinking about moving while also consciously attempting to remove a magazine from a pouch and then manipulating the weapon. Think of how much faster the reload could have been performed if he had just stopped and focused on the reload. There is a saying: "Shoot when you are shooting, move when you are moving, reload when you are reloading." This means that if you are doing a deliberate action, you will best accomplish it if you actually only do that one thing. This refers heavily to unnatural actions while attempting to perform mechanical or divided attention skills. If you are walking, you can shoot. If you are running, you cannot shoot effectively. If you are walking forward you can likely reload just as fast as when standing still. However, side-to-side lateral movement is not conventional or natural movement, so you must think about it and thus cannot effectively manipulate your gun.
My point will be reiterated in a moment...
At 1:16 he talks about his reloads that he used where he had about 40 of them fail to fire. He documents this in his blog. This is why you DO NOT use hand loads in gunfighting courses. Precision rifle training is the only acceptable exception.
At 1:50 he has finally had so many malfunctions that he has to transition to pistol. He engages targets from 40yds to 100yds with the pistol. If you have absolutely no other choice, you can make this work if you have the training. If you have alternatives, you have no business engaging a target beyond 50yds with a pistol. The average 9mm drops 12" at 100yds, so you can imagine what a slower .40 or .45 would do. Ballistics also take a nose dive at those ranges. The ideal option is to perform malfunction clearance on the rifle. If the ammo is all bad, ditch the mag and put in a new one.
At 2:19 he goes into a remedial malfunction clearance action. WHILE MOVING. Look at how much difficulty he's having with doing the manipulations. As I stated before, divided attention causes problems. The ideal response should be to run to cover and get down, stop, and do the manipulation. If not that, stop in place and sort it out. If you are far enough away to need to do the clearance instead of transitioning to sidearm, your best advantage is to do whatever you can to get the rifle up and running as fast as possible. When you watch, you see that it takes him something like 20-30 seconds (estimate if you take into account the slow-motion portion) to perform the manipulation. A properly trained shooter can clear a double-feed/Type-3 malfunction in ~10-15 seconds. When seconds count, doubling your time because you want to prance around is ridiculous.
Point of all this is that I learned a lot about this training group based on this AAR. What I get is that the trainer is jamming a bunch of info into a short period of time to give everyone a "taste". This amounts to gaming or play, not legitimate long term training. If top level trainers need at least two days to train people who to shoot while moving, why would lower-end instructors think that they can build a better mousetrap? This is an example of a question that you should ask yourself when you see or read something that deviates or stands out as being questionable.
Food for thought is all.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire