2009 Minnesota Sectional Match...

Went to Minnesota for their Sectional Match again this year--7 stages, only about 158 rounds. Fairly small, and the stages (by diagram) looked fairly simplistic. However, once I got there and took a look at how the stages actually turned out, I was pleased. I still would have liked one or two more stages (for a level II match) but there were some nicely tricky things in these stages, and they isolated a number of shooting skills for those who wanted to do well.

I had a lot of fun. Here is some video from the match...



..and more comments to follow.

Edited on June 28th to add:

Other than the massive screwup on the Random Hoser stage, it was a pretty good match for me. I could nitpick all of the small details, or just pick the two major things I should work on that will make the most difference. (Later for smaller details.)

As I shot it, I kept thinking that what was slowing me down (losing me time) was the fact that as I moved, I was often in a position where I could shoot, but I wasn't done with my reload yet. And several times after I was done moving and in the new shooting position, I still wasn't done with my reload. I had pretty much decided that I really needed to work on my moving reloads when Ben Stoeger (GM-Production Division) mentioned (we were all talking together after the match) that he thought I had gotten better since last year, and the only thing really holding me back was my moving reloads.

There you go. :)

He also suggested I get some competition-style magazine pouches, instead of these duty-type ones I currently have. I bought these as the cheapest thing I could find back when I started, and while they are handy for regular carry and such, they really aren't right for competition. Getting new ones won't be a magical fix, but it would help. So I'll probably do that, and work on my moving reloads. We'll see if I can get them faster by Area 3.

Second major thing, that has never been major before: What happened to my brain during the random hoser stage? Normally, I'm very good at changing my plan on the fly, and don't have any problems at quick critical thinking/problem solving even in the middle of a stage. That time, though---sheesh.

I think a major problem was that I hadn't solidly realized that I was running so close to the gun's capacity (magazine-wise). Every space was set for 10 rounds, and with one extra at the beginning, I never had an extra after--and I wasn't ready for that. As I get better, I don't give myself the "miss leeway" that I used to, and this time since I hadn't really thought about it, the consequences of the first additional shot didn't really occur to me--so I didn't try to get past the problem.

Something to remember---in most cases, I've got more than enough mags on my belt. If the count goes off, reload, and go back to the plan. Don't stop thinking--but often, that is the fastest fix available.

I dropped 60 points just on that stage because of that screwup. I ran the stats---if I had been shooting Limited-10 minor, I would have gotten second place with my current score. If I had run the Random Hoser stage like any normal stage, I would have gotten first in Limited-10 shooting minor, including beating a master-class person. (Granted, I wasn't in Limited-10, so it wouldn't have mattered. But as a comparison...)

I would still have lost solidly to Ben in Production, of course. He ended with 790 points. (Won every stage.) Even if I had gotten back 40 of those lost points, I still would have only had 662---nowhere close to his score. But it would have been a better-looking second place...

So:

1) Bear in mind how close I am running to the capacity of the magazine, and
2) Work on moving reloads, and eventually get better magazine pouches for competition.

That is what happening for drills now...

Advanced Defensive Shooting...

So, Julie, Ardi, and I went down to the Advanced Defensive Shooting class a couple of weeks ago. "This course teaches advanced defensive shooting skills designed for students who have successfully completed the Introduction To Defensive Shooting Class, applying those skills in a vastly more complicated environment."

The "more complicated environment" was defined as shooting moving targets, multiple targets, shooting while moving, and a few other things.

It started with some classroom discussion, mostly reviewing material from the Intro class to make sure people hadn't forgotten anything. Our class only had four people--which was good, as we ended up running many more drills than normal. The fourth gentleman had taken the intro course almost a year prior, so he was a little rusty on some things.

Specifics we started with:

• use of verbal commands
• scanning for threats
• carrying at low ready, not high ready
• don't crowd cover
• gun moves with you when you move past cover (don't look without the gun)

Also, there was some discussion about how to react when accosted on the street by someone whose intent is to get you to stop and interact. I thought the response taught was useful, but not in the form in which I would handle it. Ardi's response was that she though the reaction was too loud and confrontative, and likely to escalate the (currently non-violent) situation.

One mildly arg! point in the beginning of the class--the fourth student didn't remember what "reset point" on his trigger meant, so the teacher had him pull his gun out of the holster (facing the wall) and pull the trigger so she could show him. Now, this was before we had started the class, and we hadn't checked our guns, the teacher hadn't seen us clear/load/holster them---she had no idea what his gun's condition was. And she never checked, and just had him pull the trigger! I know that all students are supposed to be responsible for themselves, but *I* would have checked the gun first as the instructor.

It was also interesting--when he pulled the trigger on his Ruger P89, and then let it out for the reset, she (the teacher) was very surprised at how long the reset was. My comment was that it was a DA/SA, so since the slide didn't re-cock the hammer, the second pull was going to be DA again, so it wouldn't really be as long as the actual SA would be. She didn't seem to understand. (It is possible I didn't explain it well, but nonetheless, she should have known, I think.)

Again, there was an emphasis on the double-tap--the first shot aimed, but the second one let go as fast as possible just as soon as the reset could be engaged, and the trigger pressed again. And I still don't like that sort of thinking, even for defensive pistol shooting. I'm not saying doing double-taps for defensive shooting is bad, I just disagree with how it was taught, and whether it should be automatic in all cases of defensive shooting.

After discussing these things in the classroom, we went out to the range for a succession of drills. As before, we started with the stepback drill to warm up (measured it this time---started at 7 yards, only went back to 11 yards).

After that, we did some strong-hand-only drills, some transitioning-to-weakhand-only drills, and then worked some movement. (Simple draw-and-shoot-2 drills for the SHO/WHO ones.)

For the movement, we did a "box drill" where we moved in a square pattern around some barrels while shooting, then a "snake drill" where we moved around barrels placed in a line.

For the Box Drill, the barrels were simply marker points--not people, not cover, merely placeholders to tell us where to move. This drill is for people who have never shot on the move before--it isn't a "move to the barrel then shoot, then move to the next barrel and shoot" drill, the student is supposed to shoot while moving throughout.

After that, we started on the snake drill. The first time we ran the snake drill the barrels were merely markers for movement. However, in later drills they were people, and that made movement a little different. (There was also an assumption that they were innocent people, which might be a stretch, but we acted that way anyway.)

You shouldn't point guns at people you aren't planning on shooting. As such, we worked on the "sole position," which is a handgun position used for movement through crowded areas. The point is to have the handgun safely pointed downward (and not outward) but in such a manner as to make it instantly accessible and ready to shoot. We practiced with rubber guns for awhile, then went back to the snake drill, and practiced movement and firing through the barrels using the sole position.

One of the things that was very difficult about this was the tendency to treat the barrels as "cover" as opposed to "people". You don't edge around a person and shoot past their ear. Chances are they will be moving, screaming, flailing, and in general doing all the things that will get them (and you!) killed. The one thing they probably WON'T be doing is staying out of the way. I'm thinking that in the future, putting pictures of people on the barrels will help somewhat--students would move further away from the barrels to shoot, as opposed to snaking their way around the edges.

People are not cover. (Technically, they might be, but they certainly aren't reliable cover.) The instructors only started commenting about this after I mentioned it once after a drill--and even after that, didn't really seem to get the idea about why you have to give people room if you are planning on shooting past them.

One of the things that I noticed for this part was a remarkable silence on proper target acquisition. After you, if you are pie-ing your way around a corner (I'll note that "slicing the pie" wasn't taught in this class at all) you should shoot the BadGuy who is a threat. You shouldn't move around, come face-to-face with two BadGuys, then shoot at them both in a random order. You should: as you pie-slice the cover, one BG comes into view--shoot him. Either duck back into cover and move to a different spot before sticking your head out, or immediately continue your pie-slicing, and as soon as you see another BG, drop him also.

For the entirety of the class, however, there wasn't any discussion of tactical thinking with respect to danger levels--which guy should be shot first? How should someone come out from behind cover? Even the "graduation exercise" had multiple BadGuys directly in sight from the beginning, and no movement was allowed on the part of the student--and there was no cover available!

Just like last time, I think a major point of effective self-defense with a handgun was missed---in the intro class, what was missed was the idea that if you are shooting, you should be moving to cover. Always! In this second class, it was the concept of target selection and acquisition--who should be engaged first? Those two things are incredibly important, and yet they weren't discussed at all.

We'll come back to those concepts, by the way.

Okay---so, students worked on the sole position which was taught pretty well, and I was able to differentiate between the way I did it, and the way they taught it--the method I know is about keeping the gun secure close to the body, but available for firing--their method was for keeping the gun pointed down and away from bystanders. It made a slight difference, and after some rather heavy-handed instruction from one of the assistant instructors (and after I fixed what I was doing to match their version) I realized why the difference. Mine was for quick movement and firearms retention, and theirs was for crowded-area movement. Good to know the difference, and their "sole position" was good.

More on the instruction method later, by the way.

Next up: car shooting. They had a mockup of a car (not really---but enough with the steering wheel and the seat-with-seatbelt to make it good) that we practicing drawing/shooting/moving out of the vehicle. Some good food for thought there. I didn't necessarily agree with everything they said, but my disagreements were mostly dealing with how *I* specifically would move out of my car and my wife's car, not with their general instruction. A good section, and very thought-provoking. Both Ardi and Julie said this really made them think. (Me too.)

After that, the instructors pulled out a number of moving targets, and just kept running drills of increasing complexity for us to practice. I'm thinking that here is where they ran out of actual drills, and just kept adding more targets because they didn't know what else to do. With only 4 of us in the class, it didn't take long for us to do each drill---so it went quickly. The moving targets included swingers, sliders (moving from left-to-right and right-to-left), a drop-turner, and a clamshell target.

The more they added, the more it seemed like a typical IPSC stage---so much so that it was hard not to attempt to "game" the stage. That, combined with the fact that there was no emphasis on being behind cover, no emphasis on moving to cover, and no emphasis on tactical target selection, made this last part merely an exercise in shooting, as opposed to an exercise in defensive shooting. It was a lot of fun, and probably helpful for Ardi and Julie (particularly since Julie doesn't do any IPSC shooting, so doesn't work with moving targets much), but for me, it was just another IPSC stage. Fun, but not what I was hoping for. The part that would have made it a defensive tactics situation was missing.

We then had a "graduation exercise" which I promised to not talk about. Suffice it to say that it was more of the same with a twist. (Part of the twist being that everyone else ran a different stage, but they made it worse for me. Humph!)

So, overall:

New Things We Learned/Drilled:

• Strong-hand only
• Weak-hand only
• Transition to weak hand from strong hand
• Shooting while moving
• Sole Position and movement
• Shooting from car
• Shooting moving targets

Things That Didn't Happen:

• Target Selection Instruction (shoot the threat, not just random order!)
• Movement to cover
• People are Not Cover! (and shooting right past their ear isn't going to end well)
  

While the "did happen" list looks nicely larger than the "didn't happen" list, I think that the first two things on the "didn't happen" list are perhaps some of the most important concepts that should be taught in a defensive pistol class. You should NOT be standing there shooting---the minute you start your draw you should be moving to safety/cover (this is under the assumption that for some reason you could not have started moving sooner) and your target selection should be based on who is the most immediate danger to you, and then the next dangerous, etc. Standing in one place and shooting is much more likely to end badly. And shooting at targets randomly generally means that someone is going to get to you before you stop them.

Instruction methods: Again, the instructors seemed to be shooters who had taken classes in gun-handling, and therefore taught gunhandling for self-defense, as opposed to people who taught defensive tactics using a handgun. It seemed to me that while the drills were good (even the later ones, though the priorities weren't taught well) they didn't understand the reason for the drills--they thought it was to get better at shooting, as opposed to being better at self-defense. I know I said that last time, and these were the same instructors---yet I had hoped that the first time things were omitted simply because it was an introductory class.

Apparently not.

At two points during the course, the two assistant instructors demonstrated how to handle a particular skill/drill. (One demonstration each.) In one "demonstration" case, the instructor had a number of misses, and in the other case the instructor mostly had "stopping" hits, but was extremely slow, and took the time to get into a classic shooting stance, square to the target, out in full view of multiple targets, and took his time aiming at each while in full view. (The reason for his occasional non-stopping hit was the fact that he double-tapped each target, and the second shot was not nearly as accurate as the first.)

In other words, the instructors were not high level shooters. Now, I certainly don't require that in a defensive tactics class. For example, I've shot in a competition with Ben Stoeger (an IPSC Production division Grandmaster) a couple of times, and while he could teach me a LOT about shooting, I'm pretty sure I could teach him a lot about defensive pistol tactics. The knowledge the teacher has is what is important in a DT class, not whether or not he/she is a grandmaster level shooter.

That being said, they should be able to get solid A hits on targets quickly at combat distance, while maintaining good awareness, position, and demonstrating movement and use of cover. That is the point, after all.

We didn't see that.

I still had fun in the class. I learned a couple of things (a different method of "sole position" used for a slightly different situation; had a good thought process going regarding car defense; found a couple of good new drills for practicing movement) and had a good time shooting moving targets.

The instructors again seemed like people who knew one way to do things, taught that one way, and wouldn't think about alternate methods. That's fine--I came there to learn what they had to teach. That being said, however, sometimes an alternate method is required for someone who can't do it the regular way--and there isn't always just one "best answer". One assistant instructor in particular was rather abrasive in his "you are doing it wrong---you have to do it this way!" method.

For example, one time after finishing a drill, I did my area scan, noted he was standing behind a barrel on my left just watching, the RO was behind me to my right, and the other instructor was sitting in a chair far uprange. No one else was close. So, I reloaded and holstered my weapon. He then said "Did you look" and I said "Yes" whereupon he stepped out from behind the barrel showing he was holding a rubber gun, and proceeded to chew me out for "assumptions."

He had a point, in that I saw him and didn't further check. In my opinion, I also had a point in that if I see an RO standing watching me and not doing anything else, it is reasonable to holster the firearm. The chewing out lasted for awhile, showing how much "in danger" I was for not paying attention, and how I can't afford to miss dangerous situations, etc.

Very non-productive, and not good teaching, I thought. Among other things, 1) it isn't reasonable to spend the first 4 hours with an RO watching you, and suddenly expect a student who sees an RO watching them to consider the RO a threat (when he is deliberately hiding the gun behind a barrel so it can't be seen), and 2) what did he want me to do, bring the gun around and shoot him? In previous situations, the ROs would hold up their hands, and the student would have to be able to later tell the RO how many fingers he was holding up. Not really what we want to look for, and yet more useful than what the RO did to me.

So, for the class: Just like last time, but more so, I wouldn't suggest this class for people who aren't already good shooters--and if they are, taking a class that actually teaches defensive tactics while using a handgun will keep them safer.

We've already signed up (and paid for) the third class in the series (CQT), so there is one more to go. That one won't happen until August, but I'll post about it when it happens.

For the record, when I start officially teaching pistol classes here (Basic Pistol, Intro/Intermediate/Advanced Defensive Pistol, and Basic IPSC instruction) my classes are going to run a little differently.

ENPS June 2009 USPSA Pistol Match...

In my last post, one of the things I said was "when I tried to rush, it didn't work out." Well, I didn't rush this match. Matter of fact, I just relaxed and shot nice and consistently for the entire match. I had one or two extremely good stages, and the rest were all good solid runs---no bad stages in the match.

And not only did I win Production division, but I won 1st Overall, too!

Here's what it looked like:



So, watching this, what should I work on?

First stage I shot (stage 3), the draw was okay, the accuracy was good, and the shooting went smoothly. I did get lucky, however, because taking the time for that third shot on the swinger almost gave me a miss on the disappearing target. I managed the A-hit, but it was really close.

Stage 4 had me getting out of the chair--and my reaction was just slow. I've noticed that on stages where I start with movement (bodily movement, as opposed to a draw) I don't react until after the beep is finished---but when I draw, I normally start my draw at the beginning of the beep. It isn't much of a difference, but it is something to work on. I also should have drawn the minute I was upright, instead of waiting--moving with my hand on my hip isn't normal, and slows me down, plus then when I'm done moving I have to wait to get the gun up and on target.

* Note to self: practice bringing the gun up earlier so that at the end of the movement, it is on target, as opposed to bringing it up after the movement is finished.

I also am dropping the gun to my middle as I reload---this takes time, my reloads aren't as good as when the gun is higher, and it takes longer to get back on target. I wonder why I'm doing this? I don't practice it that way!

*2nd Note to self: practice reloading, keeping the gun in the plane of the eye/target. Also practice reloading during the first step of the move, instead of during the entire movement.

On stage 5, the whole thing went fairly smoothly---what lost me places was my accuracy on the move. Too many C hits for this stage. No misses, and no D hits---but too many C hits, and you can't afford that in Production.

*3rd note to self: practice shooting on the move

On stage one, we can see that bad reloading technique again---it wasn't incredibly slow, but it is certainly slower than I am consistently capable of, which in this short of a stage (and particularly on a classifier) has a large effect. (And too many C hits there, also.)

For stage two, it went decently well, other than occasional aiming problems (missed three times on steel plates, and once on a popper). Overall, though, not too bad.

So---practice for this month: In addition to normal practice (draw/first shot, box-to-box movement, accuracy) add drills for shooting on the move, having the firearm ready when I reach the next shooting position, and reloading correctly.

A good match, overall. This week I have the Advanced Defensive Pistol class, but next week I'll be in Minnesota for their Sectional Match. Hopefully I'll get in some good, effective practice before then to increase my skills, and decrease the time I'm losing due to these deficiencies.

Drazy Steel 500...

Commentary to come later today (hopefully) but here is some video...



It was lots of fun---tiring, but fun.

Added Later:

And here's the commentary!

Let's get the "Cons" part of the "Pros/Cons" out of the way.

Cons:

1) This was a first-ever match, so there were all sorts of unforseen headaches and administrative/paperwork problems associated with it. Enough to almost move past the "oh, that'll happen in a first match" level of annoyance. Speaking truthfully, I think there were several things that prior preparation would have handled, that didn't have to have been a problem---among other things, getting the final results out at the end, and having them posted in a readable fashion relatively soon. For example, I knew that I placed decently enough in Production to get to go to the prize table---but I had no idea what my place actually was.

2) There was also one stage ("Speed Option") where the stage description didn't mention anything about the "option" and time bonus given. While it was mentioned in the morning meeting, the stage briefing didn't have it, so we operated according to the stage briefing. Well, some other people didn't, so the stage was later scored according to the "option" version. (NOT what was written in the stage briefing.) In my case, that didn't make a difference. However, in Ardi's case she would have shot it very differently, and had a much better time overall. Out of the whole match, this was probably the only thing that I really thought was a mistake on the part of the match officials. (If nothing else, people should have been given the chance to re-shoot the stage according to the new requirements, if they wished. Again, I wouldn't have done anything different, but Ardi definitely would have.)

3) Some of the steel, especially on a couple of the Steel Challenge stages, were very close. I'd prefer a slightly harder shot to getting hit with spatter repeatedly while trying to shoot at speed. (Got hit a couple of times in the face with lead spatter while I was in the middle of a string. NOT helpful for the concentration.)

4) Next year, everyone gets one entry. That's it. This time, there was a GM from Chicago (I believe Chicago) who participated in Limited and Production, with the same gun (only changing magazines), and won both. And high law enforcement. In both. Now, he certainly deserved his wins, because he thrashed the rest of everyone in both classes, especially Production. So this isn't against him in any way. I just think that everyone should get one shot at each stage, and that should be it.

4) There really isn't any four--no other large "con" for the match, though I do have a couple of suggestions for next year that I'm going to send to Drazy and Hirst.

Pros: It was a fun match to shoot!

1) We got to shoot a LOT. 24 stages total---12 steel challenge, and 12 USPSA. Matter of fact, in some ways it was almost a bit too much of a good thing. People who shoot with me already know that if I'm out there, I want to put some rounds downrange. I don't mind the occasional short stage, but I really like the long involved ones, and I like to shoot a lot of them. That being said, I really think that two days of 10 stages each would work better. People will get done a little quicker, and no one is going to feel short-changed after 20 stages total.

2) The USPSA stages were nicely tricky here and there. A good selection of running stages, with a good selection of standing stages. Decent angles, some nicely switching shots (short-range large popper to small plate at a distance, etc), and in general, some stages that really rewarded good stage planning and tactics. No really small stages---med and long stages only.

3) Steel Challenge was fun. I have only tried offical SC stages once before, so they were pretty much all new (and happily, I wasn't stomped too badly even by the experienced SC shooters) and that was a good time. I much prefer USPSA shooting, but SC is still enjoyable.

Commentary on MY shooting:

Unsurprisingly, when I tried to rush, it didn't work out. Big shock. Matter of fact, looking back at my set of runs, it irks me how incredibly much time I could have saved. Reloads were sloppy/slow, movement was sluggish periodically (mostly), draws were pretty slow on the USPSA stages (though decent on the SC stages except for Outer Limits), and I should have taken more time to aim. (Hmm, how many times have I said that before.) Watch the video and count how many times I have to do a slide-lock reload to get One Last Shot in to finish the stage. Arg!

I'd say something here like "if I could have fixed those things, I would have placed higher" but that only makes sense if everyone else gets a shot at fixing their problems also. So--I placed 5th, and had a lot of fun. And while the prize table was kind of pathetic (well, it was) I grabbed a Glock shirt for Ardi. So she got something out of it also.


It was a good time, and I didn't mind being an RO while shooting. I will say, however, that I really wish my squad had gotten off their rear ends and helped out more. When the RO who ran the stage timer has to go out and set all the steel for the next run, the shooters are NOT doing their jobs. Lazy @*%&#^!! There were a couple of people who helped almost every single time (even when they could have been getting ready for their own run---thanks Ed and Ardi!) but we had a couple who didn't do hardly anything--but complained when other people sat around and didn't help either.

[sigh] I've had pretty good luck up until now---most squads I've been on in larger matches really have mostly been good about pasting and setup. This---wasn't.

Anyway---overall, a fun match. And a good check on accurate shooting at speed. For next year, I might try the Pro-Am---but I might do this instead. The Pro-Am looks like a lot of fun, but this definitely was lots of fun.

Continuation of Intro Course Discussion...

...and yes, it has been awhile. We went to the first ever Drazy Steel 500 match last weekend, and had a lot of fun. More on that (including video) once I get my new computer to replace the old one that died.

In the meantime---more on the IDS course from a few weeks ago. (The Advanced Defensive Shooting course is next week, so that should be interesting. This time I plan to keep a record of what drills we do all day.)

In general, the drills really were pretty good, in terms of isolating and practicing a useful skill for defensive tactics. They started out fairly simple, and grew in complexity under the assumption that the previous skill had been learned, internalized, and could be built upon.

Drills included multiple targets, moving forward/moving backward, turns and pivots (somewhat), shooting strong-hand only and weak-hand only, included verbalization and some commentary on reloading, and barricade work. (Plus some others I don't recall without my notes.)

I liked the drills, I really did. In the "debrief" (which really wasn't, but they wanted to call it that), one of the feedback items I gave the instructors was that the drills were not only good, but showed a good logical progression of skills from simple to more complex, with each one reinforcing the previous. A good system, really.

Next up---the "cons" part of the Pro/Con discussion. Before I continue, I should say that I enjoyed the course. I didn't learn anything new in this course, but I did enjoy it. And the two people who went with me both enjoyed it, and learned some new things about themselves. (Ardi said that they didn't do anything in the class that I hadn't already shown her, but she still learned things about her shooting abilities. And they both liked the class.) So, the class was worth it.

That being said, from a teaching standpoint just one single change in the class format would have made an incredible difference to the amount of learning on the part of the students.

Here's how each drill worked. There were 6 or 7 of us on the shooting line. We gathered around the instructor, she discussed exactly what we were to do for the drill, sometimes she demonstrated it, and then we moved to the line. Once on the line, an instructor gave the "draw" command and we performed the drill. If it was a 2-shot drill, we might perform it 6-8 times, if a multi-shot drill we might perform it a bit less. Then, once everyone was holstered again, we'd move up to the targets, tape them as the instructors made comments, then we moved off the line so that the other line of students could perform the drill. After both lines were done, the instructor gathered us around for the next drill.

See the problem? (Do you? You might not, if you aren't a teacher.) If the drills were good, and we got feedback, shouldn't learning occur?

From a teaching aspect, the answer is no. Unless the student performs the drill perfectly (and this is self-defense---there is no "perfect") there should always be feedback for every student, and then each student should get several more chances to take advantage of the feedback to adjust what they were doing. In other words, after the feedback the student needs to try the drill again!

There were a number of drills where all the feedback I got was "good!" Okay, I know I can shoot decently, but I want to get better. Telling me that I was adequate doesn't help. If I did something wrong, telling me at the end doesn't help--because I don't have a chance to fix the problem. I have a good memory, and took notes, and yet I certainly do not remember all the drills we did that day. As such, any problems I had on the drills that I don't remember--I can't fix!

And believe me, a number of students had problems on the drills. Yet in almost every case, the only feedback/correction the student received was at the end of the drill set--whereupon the student walked off the line, and didn't get a chance to work on fixing the problem.

The drill sequence (and skill set) really was good--but leaving out the feedback/response part means that most of the students didn't really get much better as time went on. They did get better--just not nearly as much as they could have if they had received mid-drill feedback.

Yes, each drill would have been longer, so the class either couldn't have contained as many drills, or the class overall would have had to be much longer. But the difference in learning! I would much have rather run each drill 4 times, gone up, had feedback, pasted targets, and run the drill 3 more times (and done half or 2/3 as many drills for the course) than the way we did it.

As it was, most of the feedback I received on my shooting came from myself. For example, I fixed a problem I had been having with within-arm-reach hipshooting. Or at least I think I did, because I never got feedback on it, and once I figured out the solution we were already done with the drill so I didn't get a chance to try it live. (I have since then, though, and my solution works. Or rather, stopping doing the wrong thing is working.)

Most of the people shooting in the class simply didn't have enough shooting experience to analyze and fix their own shooting problems--so for most of them, this was an Introduction to Shooting In Different Ways, as opposed to skill-building for defensive shooting.

Don't get me wrong---some learning still occurred, and most of the students did get better as the day went on. But I really doubt they know why, and could apply that to other shooting situations.

Some drills had no feedback at all. In one drill, we moved laterally while firing one-handed at a series of targets. (Strong-hand only and weak-hand only depending on which way we were moving.) I'm a pretty good shot, and yet because of the way the drill was done, I have no precise idea where my shots hit. We didn't paste any targets for this entire drill (the whole class), we were moving sideways quickly, and the instructors never gave any feedback to any shooter about their accuracy, or how to increase it.

I'm not really sure of the point of that drill. As it was, most students simply learned that 1) they can shoot one-handed, and 2) they have no idea if they can hit anything shooting one-handed.

Some other things:

• In one drill, they had us turning 90 degrees either right or left, and engaging the target. (We also pivoted from facing the opposite direction, whereupon one of my classmates drew and swept the entire room as he turned. That was fun.) I simply pivoted my feet and turned my hips, drew, and put two into the A-zone. One instructor chided me for not stepping into the new position, saying that "without a good stance, you won't hit the target." I looked at my two A-zone hits (about 2 inches apart), thought about the fact that in a defensive situation I won't necessarily get to pick where my feet are, thought about the fact that a quick pivot is much faster than a step-and-turn, carefully didn't say that I was perfectly comfortable in my sideways stance---and just said "Ok."
  
  
• One of the things that they wanted us to verbalize was the following sequence. "Please stop. Don't make me shoot you" ...and something else I don't remember. (Get the idea I wasn't impressed?) When the instructor first said it, right off the bat I didn't like it. Don't say "Please" when giving a command. Your voice is going to be in bad enough shape under stress, don't make it sound like you are pleading. Second, "don't make me shoot you" gives the attacker the impression that you really don't have it in you to effectively defend yourself with lethal force--again, not the impression you want to create. But lastly, the types of drills we were doing didn't lend themselves to verbalizing those things! Those are things you say when the situation gives you time to do so---the situation is such that you draw your weapon, and are moving to safety, but do not actively have to be engaging the criminal. Our drills for the class---were all about shooting. Verbalizing wasn't taught very effectively, particularly with regard to when verbalization is important.
  
  
• The instructor also made a point of having the students note that forcefully saying "Please stop" somewhat sounds like "Police Stop," and that might deter criminals. She also made a point of saying that you should not actually say "Police! Stop!" because that is impersonating a police officer, and is illegal.
  
  As far as I know, that isn't true. In a self-defense sitaution, I can say whatever I like in defense of myself. Saying I'm a police officer is certainly a less-than-lethal response, and if it works, why not use it? Lying for self-defense purposes is not illegal. Now, outside of a self-defense situation, it certainly IS illegal--but that is something else entirely. As a Federal Air Marshall said once to a class I was in, "You can say anything you need to save your life."
  
  
• Lastly---when reloading, they wanted to make sure people didn't just stand there. This of course makes sense, because if you have to reload in the middle of a self-defense situation, you don't want to stand still and be a good target. However, to "fix" this problem, the instructors had everyone step back-and-forth (you know all the humorous parodies of white men dancing? that kind of stepping) while reloading. According to them, this made you a harder target to hit.
  
  I kept my mouth shut. But what immediately jumped into my mind was 1) if you aren't going to have them move to cover, why aren't you having them at least move their center of mass instead of just moving their feet, and 2) why aren't we moving to cover? Perhaps the advanced course will involve moving to cover. I hope so, because this class didn't talk about movement away from the attacker, moving off-line, or taking cover hardly at all. From everything I know about defensive shooting, if you are shooting then you should be moving---preferably to complete safety, at worst to concealment but preferably cover.
  
  We did do a tiny bit of shooting on the move---one drill with straight backward and straight forward movement. But that was it. This "dancing while reloading" bit was nonsense. Perhaps they thought it at least got people away from thinking about just standing there? If so, why didn't they have a drill that started to practice useful movement?
  

There was more, both good, and annoying. But I don't have my notes with me, and you already get the idea.

It really seemed to me that the class was taught by some people who shoot, shoot well, think that people should be able to defend themselves with firearms, and have taken classes in firearms defense. This, however, is different from a class taught by people who have studied self-defense and defensive tactics, and understand the use of tools such as firearms in defensive tactics. I may be wrong, because I don't know what the intructor's full knowledge base is--but it certainly felt that way. Plus, some of the things they were teaching (here and there) matched tactics I've read about that were state-of-the-art 8-10 years ago. (Which matches when they were taking classes, I believe.) Some things have changed since then, in my opinion. (In tool usage for self-defense, at least.)

The instructors for this course have fairly effectively (for the most part) created a sequence of drills that can help shooters interested in starting to learn the concepts of self-defense with a handgun.

That being said---it isn't how I'm going to run my defensive tactics classes.

Overall, would I recommend this class to people? Yes and no. For shooters who already know how to shoot, and know the basics of firearms self-defense, it is a pretty good time. You get to practice some skills, the sequence of drills is useful, and you can start spotting holes in your skills set. For new shooters---probably not what I would suggest. Not enough feedback for shooters who can't effectively self-monitor.

The Advanced Defensive Tactics class is next weekend. I'll post a commentary on that one after it happens.