I spent most of my time describing our group encounters with situations "... not perhaps typically taught" in these classes. More accurately, these are situations which the class is not designed to teach.
"Repetition for emphasis" is a training tool, and I used it as much as I could during the class.
Now I want to use the same tool to examine the difference between the subject matter which the class is "designed to teach", and the things which I found were "necessary to teach".
The class is designed to give the new competitor some familiarity with they way matches are conducted:
- the role of the Range Officer;
- the 'drill' of being prepared to shoot when it is your turn to shoot (see the 'bonus' item);
- what it is like to shoot at the basic types of targets (eg: steel targets, cardboard targets);
- safe movement (finger off the trigger, muzzle always pointed downrange);
- basic 'start positions' ("hands relaxed at sides", "wrists above shoulders");
- how the competitor should respond to the various Range Commands ("Make Ready", "If you are finished, unload and show clear", "If clear, hammer down, holster");
- how to reload -- change magazines -- safely (this was of great interest to the students, and unfortunately was only practiced one time due to time constraints);
- how to shoot from behind a Bianchi barricade ... which we hope will be translated by the student to "how to shoot from behind any prop";
- and as a bonus, we managed to give the students some practical experience of what it's like to shoot as a member of a squad -- knowing when it is your turn to shoot, knowing how to prepare for your turn to shoot, understanding that if you are not prepared in all aspects you will be sent back to prepare and the next shooter will be advanced to shoot while you are getting your stuff together.
I wish we had started at 9am instead of 1pm, because the in-class portion of the training ran for an hour and our "Field Training" (range time) training took almost 3 hours.
I think the students were almost sorry to see it end. I know I was, because they could have benefited greatly from more time.
In fact, a minimum amount of time should probably be predicated on the number of students in the class, plus at least one hour "question and answer" time at the end of the class to discuss the questions which inevitably arise as the students gain more understanding of what the rules of competition mean, and their practical application during an actual match.
The situation cries out for individual instruction, which requires more staffing and more time allotted. Unfortunately, these resources (time, and experienced instructors) are not likely to be available.
But if they could be, there are a couple of subjects from which the students could benefit greatly ... if there were resources to make the training available:
GUN HANDLING:
For the purpose of this discussion the term Gun Handling is defined as "the ability to use ones personal firearm in a safe and confident manner, always being aware of the rules of safety, conversant with the technical and safe use of the firearm, and equally conversant with the design, features, and efficient operation of the firearm as a piece of machinery."
This definition is proposed as a provisional definition, and is subject to revision. That is to say, if you can provide a better definition, you're invited to contribute.
The nice lady who had never fired her brand new Kimber before this class is perhaps an extreme example, but it illustrates the external pressures the student may feel when entering this class.
We assume that the student already knows how to shoot, and I found that all students were indeed quite accurate; they knew how to shoot.
But they were often unprepared for the structure of competition, which imposes an uncommon combination of a deeply ingrained understanding and appreciation of the safety rules, and the twin imperatives of fire-and-movement which typifies Practical competition.
Ideally, each student will be interviewed before the training starts to determine their familiarity with their firearms, to demonstrate their level of expertise with the firearm, and to provide immediate remedial training to correct 'bad habits'. The term 'bad habits' would include:
- familiarization with the controls (magazine release; slide lock; safeties and modes of operation especially with Production-type pistols which have 'selective safeties', 'decockers', thumb and grip safeties.)
- how to grip the pistol, position of the hand on the draw, when to set the safety 'off' during the draw/first target engagement, where to put your thumb when firing.
It would be nice to have the time to include some of the marginal items, such as the points related to finger placement on the trigger and balancing your grip, but these are advanced techniques. While they would be of benefit to the student, they properly belong to the realm of 'individual competitive instruction' which is available from professional trainers, available in most USPSA section.
PRE-MATCH:
Students seem to be concerned with questions such as "what should I do to get ready on the morning of the match?"
What they really want to know is:
- When should I put my gear on ... holster, magazine carriers?
- Should I carry my pistol in my holster all day, or should I carry it in my bag?
- What about this 'gun bag' thing? What are the reasons why I should not carry my gun in my holster? If I do that, when and where and how should I transfer it to my holster?
- When should I load my magazines? Do I load them full in the morning and top them off as needed, or should I unload all my magazines after each stage and fill them again when I get to the next stage? Why?
- What is a stage?
- How many magazines should I carry to the firing line? Why?
- How many magazines should I buy? Why?
- Does everybody walk around all day with a pistol on their hip and a belt full of magazines, or do they carry everything in their range bag until they're getting ready to actually shoot?
"What do I need a Range Bag for? What do I carry in it?"
BUYING A GUN FOR COMPETITION:
It seems inevitable that someone who is just starting is waiting to learn more about the sport before they buy a firearm for competition. The circumstances may vary; they don't know if the firearm they know own is 'competitive', they don't know what is the 'in' firearm is, or they don't know what the 'best' firearm is for the division in which they expect to compete.
What they are really looking for is some assurance that they aren't making the wrong decision in what is, to most of us, a major purchase. Worse, they are painfully aware that whatever decision they make, they will have to live with it long enough to (a) justify the cost of the original purpose, or (b) learn to be so dissatisfied with it that they feel forced to Buy a New Gun'.
When I was asked "What's a good Production Pistol", I dodged the bullet as by tap-dancing as fast as I could.
I don't know much about Production pistols, and I would hate t0 recommend one out of ignorance just because I heard a gun-owner bragging about how good his Glock/Sig/Ruger/Smith etc is.
My best reply is to plead ignorance (which is honest, if not helpful) and make a few suggestions ... which are also not helpful to the new competitor who wants to buy The Perfect Pistol now.
My only suggestion is to talk to people who shoot, and find out what they recommend. Ask to try their pistols, if only at the safety table, and see how well it fits your hand. (A person with small hands may not like a HK USP; a person with large hands may not like a sub-compact 10mm Glock 29.) And a person who has experience shooting a .45 ACP 1911 may not like the ergonomics and grip-angle of any Glock at all.
The best advice is 'talk to the man who owns one', and in any training class there may be a plethora of owner/pistol combinations to provide data for making a decision. The best anyone can do is to know what he wants; this isn't always the case for a new competitor, so it would be helpful to provide a "Kumbaya" session where everyone can sit down and talk to each other, to share experiences and discuss their personal preferences.
Again, not likely to happen when the class is only scheduled for 2 hours. But meeting other shooters and discussing the sport of shooting is often as important as the shooting experience itself. If nothing else results, it helps to get to know the people who share your interests. At best, the new competitor can gather information which may help him/her to decide what firearm best meets personal needs and expectations.
SUMMARY:
When I go to club matches, I enjoy meeting new shooters and helping them to meet their Certification requirements by shooting a safe match. If I can help make it a fun experience, one they are motivated to repeat, that's even better. Most of us enjoy Practical shooting competition, and we want everyone to enjoy it as much as we do; that unstated goal implies that we volunteer to be part of the recruitment process, and that we enjoy the company of other good people who like to shoot.
But the experience is only enjoyable if you don't feel like a total dork at your first match. The best way to avoid that feeling is to be prepared, and to know that you are prepared.
I remember that I was feeling dorky most of the first year that I competed, and the only reason I stayed with the sport is because individuals encouraged me.
The best thing that I can do for The Sport, to pay back the rewards that I discovered (a fun activity, a way to use the firearms that I like to shoot and to compare my performance to that of others, training, establishing a reasonable set of goals and meeting them, and the camaraderie or fellowship of like-minded people) is by easing the Rite of Passage which we all endure on the way to becoming membership of the fraternity of competitive shooters ... and making new friends who enjoy similar interests and values.
Sure, the goals I have defined here are probably not practical. The expense is unbearable, the people willing to put in the time are not available, and the club/range resources are limited. Perhaps more important, if you advertise that you can certify people in two hours, they are more likely to show up for the class than if you tell them in advance that they can expect one hour of classroom instruction and four or five hours of range time.
On the other hand, what's wrong with four or five hours of range time?
Nothing. It's all good. Except when you find yourself spending more time watching other people shoot and waiting for your time, than you spend shooting.
The key is to make the 'waiting time' part of the training. Involving the people who are 'waiting for their turn', encouraging them to watch the other folks shoot and then using whatever happens as part of their training, is the most efficient use of range time.
It teaches observers (other students waiting for their turn to shoot) to be aware of what is happening on the stage. This is "Situational Awareness", which is difficult state to attain but can be encouraged by including the entire class in any corrections or comments the trainer may make to an individual student.
Comments made to a student, to correct a less-than-optimal practice or action, will take a certain amount of time. If you only make those comments to one student, the rest of the class doesn't learn from it.
Instead, turn to face the rest of the class and describe the situation, describe what action the student made, define what made it a good (or not-good) action, and then describe the preferred manner of handling the situation. The lesson is made to the shooter, and the rest of the class may learn from it as well. If nothing else, it
The people who show up for these classes are highly motivated, as a rule. They want to learn, and they readily accept lessons if they are presented within the context of a situation which is presented as a part of the real-time, real-life experience of shooting a match.
This is the reason they are participating; everything is new to them, but their motivation is to shoot a match without screwing up or looking like a dork. They are as hungry for usable information as 'we were' when 'we' started shooting competitively. As a rule they are bright, aware, and they know bullshit when they see it or when they hear it.
Instructors who can make the lessons interesting even to the part of the class which is not actively participating will find that their students achieve a higher rate of success.
DISCLAIMER:
I'm making authoritative statements based on a single large-class lead instructor experience.
I can only back this up with experience in the business arena as a trainer, and training in "Supervision and Training" classes, often out-of-pocket, extending over several years.
While many of the "I wish we could do this" suggestions present here are obviously not practical because of resource shortages, the principles are sound and verifiable. Experienced trainers are invited to suggest corrections, or to offer suggestions which expand on the theme.
No comments:
Post a Comment