One of the most common questions I get is, "What gun should I get?"
I used to spend a lot of time responding to these inquiries because I genuinely love helping people. I loved being in gun sales. I love finding guns that fit people and I love helping them find that good fit. I love taking them to the range and helping them take their first shots even more.
Through the years, however, I've come to the conclusion that internet-based advice is more-often-than-not a waste of everyone's time. I have nothing new to add to what has already been written about what kind of gun is ideal for any number of different specific situations; be it jogging, home defense, deep concealment, etc. Without seeing someone shoot and seeing them with the firearm and having the opportunity to assess them in action, it's nothing more than a best-guess anyway.
That being said, it's still the reigning question for a few reasons:
1) The volume of options is overwhelming and people want to have it narrowed down for them, presumably by someone they consider to be an authority on the subject.
2) People generally overestimate the role of equipment in performance and therefore want to get the "best" gun, ideally at the lowest cost.
I'm going to skip over the first point for now and just hit you with a few general truths regarding the second:
What gun you choose doesn't make as much of a difference as you think it does.
Your first gun will likely be the wrong gun, purchased for the wrong reasons.
You'll more-than-likely not put enough rounds through it to figure out whether or not it is right/wrong for you.
You'll go on your merry way possibly advising others on what they should get based upon your limited experience training/shooting with a gun that probably isn't the right one for you.
The end.
You may be thinking that what I said was contradictory. How can your gun choice not make a difference but be wrong?
Allow me to explain...
A gun is a gun is a gun and even an ill-fitting gun put in the hands of someone who is skilled in shooting will perform adequately. He will get accurate hits at a good rate but he would perform better and more comfortably with something that fit him better. So also, if your skill were the same (or as it increases) you would be able to better assess the fit and feel of your firearm and what makes it right or wrong for you and adjust accordingly.
Skill is far more vital to performance than your equipment (presuming, of course, your equipment is quality enough to last). And eventually, as you get skilled enough, you can better gauge whether or not your performance will be augmented by your equipment and through what change--a small-handed person having better control with a single-stack firearm or having the grip reduced, a cross-dominant shooter getting better sight picture with a red dot, an individual with arthritis getting a trigger job, etc.
Most people do not seek out enough skill to where their equipment choice matters that much. There are exceptions, but that's the general truth. They buy a gun, they put maybe a box or two of ammo through it a year (if that) and whether or not it is the right one for them is irrelevant compared to their lack of skill.
So what does that mean for you?
Well, it means nothing if you aren't committed to gaining skill. If you are committed you've likely already purchased a firearm, trained with it to the point where you've figured out what is working and what isn't (or your about to) and you might even be on your way to your next gun or a modification of the one you already have. Or you are lucky enough to be one of the few who bought a good fitting gun the first time but found you have a preference you'd like to change (sights, a cleaner trigger, an extended magazine release, etc).
I caution you! There is a point of diminishing returns. It happens all the time. A new shooter buys a gun. As he gains skill he finds what he doesn't like about his firearm and he changes it or modifies it. He gains more skill and changes or modifies his gun again. He often attributes his increase in skill to the modifications or new firearms he's purchasing. Then one day he finds out that a modification or new gun doesn't help. In fact, it hinders or he improves slightly in one area but worsens in another. The new gun doesn't shoot the way the old one did. He had better sight picture with the last sights. If he's not careful he can get stuck in a rut of cycling through gun after gun, throwing hundreds and thousands of dollars of equipment at a skill problem.
The solution? Find the gun that fits you best, make any modifications you have to (if any) and then leave the gun alone. Work on gaining more skill.
Now, there are a lot of people out there who say you should never (ever, Ever, EVER!!!!!!!) modify a carry gun. A lot has been written on that subject so go read it and make up your own mind on the matter. If you make a modification to your carry gun make sure you have a good, logical explanation for why you did it. If you have the disposable income, time and inclination to go nuts on a competition or range gun? Go. Be wild, my friend! But keep your carry gun as close to stock as feasible and avoid the equipment rut.
Finally, there are reportedly those out there who get lucky. They go into carry and shooting
with a committed and realistic mindset. They wisely choose a stock
firearm that fits them well, they train with it extensively and they
gain in skill until they perform masterfully with the first and only gun
they've ever bought. I have yet to personally catch said unicorn.
Though I have met many who have been issued firearms for duty and gained skill to a very proficient degree with that duty gun that they apply to a personal firearm that fits them better when off duty. Even the best of the best out there have their stories about the guns
they started out with and the changes they've made along the way.
In summation, if you're serious about this gun/carry thing, put the effort into getting a gun that fits you well. Take a class, rent, shoot with friends, ask for advice and (please, I implore you, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!!) listen to what that person tells you. Purchase a firearm and then commit yourself to gaining skill. Make note of what you like or don't like about your firearm as you train with it, talk to others about it, have an instructor critique you and make an educated decision as to whether or not it is an equipment problem or a YOU problem.
Adjust accordingly.
PS... If you are somehow misguided into thinking I have it all figured out, let me assure you that I am still struggling with my own likes, dislikes, frustrations, biases, stubbornness, changes, adaptations, learning curves, etc. If I ever figure it all out, you'll be the first to know.
-->When I was twenty I got myself in an online debate about
"knockdown power." Of course I didn't know what the hell knockdown
power was. But I truly and genuinely believed that if you shot someone with a
handgun bullet they would instantly fall down. No, I didn't believe they flew across rooms or anything but I remember
watching a movie where a man got shot in the shoulder with a handgun, doesn't
even twitch, looks down at his wound and then charges the shooter in rage and
all I could think was how unrealistic that was.
I was that naive.
So when I entered this debate, I did so under the premise that knockdown
power was not only real but something to be relied upon in armed confrontation.
When my opinion was not sufficient to persuade I figured I would overload my
nay-sayers with data. So, the search began. I went to the interwebz and spent non-stop hours
searching for a shred of irrefutable proof that a handgun bullet would
physically knock a human being off of his feet reliably. The problem was I couldn't find any data to support my argument. I was wrong. And if that weren't bad enough. The people I learned that from, who I
thought were more knowledgeable than me in these matters were also wrong. And if they could be wrong about knockdown power what else were they capable
of being wrong about? Holy plastic nutcracker, they could be wrong about .... EVERYTHING! This meant only one thing: I would have to verify everything I ever learned.
I would have to test it. I would have to do my best to make sure it was valid,
not only if I were going to use it or allow it to influence in my own decision
making regarding my own safety but especially if I chose to pass that
information on to others. The problem with that is that it's time consuming and exhausting and
sometimes there is misleading or dated information out there that needs to be
updated. Another problem I've seen is with public opinion. They get used to the
way it is and resist change, new ideas or tactics. Instead of looking at those
things dispassionately, they resort to rejection. How was/am I to know what's valid, what can be changed or updated, what's
worth considering, what I'm willing to change my mind about and what I'm not? 1) Question everything. Yes, even the basics, the rules, the absolutes, the truths. If they are
worthy they will stand up to scrutiny. If they aren't, they will crumble or
will be improved upon.
No, this doesn't mean you have to be the jerk in the back of a class who is
interrupting every five seconds to ask, "Why?" (Here's a hint: Most
good instructors will already tell you why.) Use some common sense, ask valid
questions as they arise, take good notes and go home to research and get your
second opinion. If the information your questioning is in a written or online form use your
google-fu. 2) Consider the source. In this world where anyone can have an opinion and publish it in one forum
or another or get some credentials and teach a class, it can be difficult to
narrow down whether something is a trustworthy source. There are a LOT of
people out there who are vary well-respected (even if that's just locally) and
very wrong. There are also people out there who are generally unknown but very
knowledgeable. Determining who is worth considering can be difficult. Resort to
step 1 and then move on to step 3. 3) Find someone (preferably more than one someone) you can trust. I have been very fortunate to get acquainted with and even become friends
with some great instructors and leading individuals in the gun community.
Perhaps one of the reasons I've been so fortunate is because I've sought these
people out. I have hunted them down and not been shy about asking them
questions. They base their opinions on experience, they know how to distinguish between
tactics that work for police, military and the civilian sector and they aren't
intimidated when asked, "What makes you believe this is better than
that?" They have been gracious enough to take my questions and give me the
time of day to at least point me in the right direction when it comes to
information. I've been sent books, given links, had amazing discussions,
learned about biases, and even been told, "I don't know." And that last one should be a big clue. If your trustworthy source isn't
willing to say, "I don't know," I doubt their trustworthiness.
Many of these people have been around long enough to know and/or trained with a
good number of other instructors and aren't afraid to recommend other classes
and instruction or steer you in the right direction to meet your goals.
Be leery of instructors who discourage you from taking classes from any other
source but do consider their warnings if they tell you a certain class or
instructor isn't particularly up to par. Yeah, every instructor out there wants
business and there are feuds so keep an open mind. Do independent research and
come to your own conclusion. But remember step 2. Every instructor and writer and trainer, no matter how
good has their biases and/or flaws. Some are biased against certain types of
guns or training or methods. It doesn't make them invalid sources but it may be
important to see through their bias to avoid casting aside their valid
information or instruction. 4) Test it. It's really easy to take something you learn and think it's the begin-all
and end-all of what you need to know, especially if it seemed to work well in a
certain environment such as a classroom. I've seen this a lot in women’s'
self-defense classes. A technique will be taught as "guaranteed to
work" but then I go home and test it on a non-compliant partner and it
falls apart.
Some things being taught are just bad all around. And some are just not
right for you. I've seen lots of
techniques (or gear or ideas) that work really well for most everyone that just
don't work for me. I will give it an honest try but if it doesn't work for me,
it doesn't work. It doesn't mean the technique is completely invalid, just not
for me. Sometimes it means that the technique just needs to be worked more to
be perfected or adapted to your size and abilities. If it can't be adapted and
you've given it an honest effort and it's still not working for you (or not
working reliably) it might be time to ditch it.
The only way to know that, however, is to test it as often as you can.
This step goes hand-in-hand with step 1. If it's valid, it will work. If it's
not it will fall apart or need changing or adapting. 5) Don't stop going through the steps... Ever. Even if something has been tried and tested one hundred times or you've done
it this certain way since the first time or you heard it from a hundred
different sources, doesn't mean you stop questioning it, updating it,
reevaluating it's place in how you prepare, train or think.
You may just learn a new way to apply that same principle or you might find something that works better. But you won't if you aren't willing to open up to different avenues of learning and training. In a world where everything changes, the ones who fall behind will be the ones
who think they have it all figured out.
If you train at any number of shooting schools long enough you will find that even if they agree on certain aspects of shooting where they can almost violently disagree is in the small stuff.
How many forum death matches have been waged over whether or not to use the slide release or rack the slide; whether to use to the strong side thumb to release a magazine or the support hand; whether to bring a gun to a low ready or high, SUL or something else?
Just as hotly debated is the sequence of events surrounding magazine changes.
For the first four or five years I carried and trained in firearms I traditionally hit the magazine release with my strong-side thumb while retrieving a fresh magazine and pretty much expected the magazine well of my gun to be empty by the time I got back with my fresh magazine.
When I went to the Tactical Defense Institute for the second time (the first time was a knife class so there wasn't a lot of talk about magazine changes) I was introduced to the concept of "stripping" an empty (or troubled) magazine from the gun before retrieving a fresh one.
With stripping the magazine, once the firearm is empty and the slide locks back, or if the gun jams to the point where a magazine change is required, one hits the magazine release with the strong-side thumb (or however they hit the release for lefties) and physically rips or "strips" the magazine from the auto-loader with the support hand before retrieving a fresh magazine.
The reasons the instructors gave for this were primarily three-fold:
1. Your magazine can get hung up and doesn't always drop free.
2. You could be in a strange position where gravity will not help your magazine out of the gun.
3. If your gun is jammed with what is commonly known as a "double-feed" (or, more accurately, a failure to extract). Your magazine will not fall free and you will have to physically tear it from the gun.
I've always appreciated the attitude of the TDI instructors. They don't go to any deep lengths to force you to do things their way (as long as you are being safe) but they do ask you at least try their method, see if it works for you and move on. If it doesn't, no big deal.
I can respect that. So I tried it. It was a heck of an effort to back pedal and unlearn just hitting the button.
It took some effort but it's become my standard reload to the point where I would have to unlearn the practice if I tried to change it again. I don't see that happening because I've seen the benefits of it several times, especially since I have been going to different classes that require shooting from strange positions with firearms and have higher rates of malfunctions because of said strange shooting positions.
The most glaring example was while I was at ECQ last fall. We were practicing drawing and shooting from all sorts of strange positions on the ground, one of them being flat on our back, shooting over our heads. I'd taken shots from all sorts of strange positions before so that wasn't particularly new and when my slide locked open upon empty, I didn't even think about it, I stripped the magazine, retrieved a fresh one, reloaded my gun and just kept shooting.
My husband happened to be taking video and took a quick screen shot.
Stripping the empty before retrieving a fresh magazine
Now, I'll be the first to say this isn't a perfect magazine change. I could have brought it back to my chest so I didn't have an empty gun just sticking out over my head, my hands wouldn't have had so far to travel, yada, yada, yada, but for the purpose of getting more ammo in the gun it was enough. I was reloaded and shooting again before it really even dawned on me that my newer practice of stripping a magazine vs dropping or dumping it made a change in a position like this a total non-issue.
Being able to strip my magazines more effectively (especially if really jammed up) is also why I have cutouts in the bottom of both of my Glocks.
Every year Tom Givens puts on a conference in Memphis, TN, at his
facility. It is called the Rangemaster Tactical Conference. It consists
of three days of instruction by top instructors in the firearms and self
defense community. At any given time there can be three to five
instructors presenting on any number of topics related to self defense,
particularly with a firearm. Most instruction blocks are two hours in
length but from time to time and with an important enough topic it's not
unheard of to see a whole four-hour block dedicated to one instructor
and his information.
After years of hearing great things coming out of the conference we finally made it a priority to attend this year.
The Conference was held on Feb 21-23 and the hardest part was deciding which instruction blocks to attend vs the others.
My schedule started with Shane Gosa, instructor with CQB Services International, talking about The Mental
Trigger. This entire two-hour block was largely centered around mindset. Shane had a unique perspective on Jeff Cooper's color codes of awareness, how they were intended to be used and how to apply them to daily life. We did one group visualization technique, discussed mental barriers and the aftermath of violent encounters and finished up with a training exercise on what Shane called, "Accessing State." The exercise is meant to train the mind and body to work together and to limit or completely eliminate the freeze response and allow for a faster and more efficient aggressive, defensive or offensive response. Not only did it address turning the aggression on, immediately, but also turning it off (often the hardest and most damning part of self defense). The lecture concluded with a discussion on winning vs survival, the importance of combat breathing and other tips on getting the most out of training sessions.
Next was Kathy Jackson, author and instructor for Cornered Cat. Her lecture was very bluntly titled "What Women Want" and centered around getting more women to attend professional firearms and self defense training. She opened with statistics about how many women were getting their carry permits and buying guns compared to men (hint, it's a lot more women than you think) and on the high note she dashed us down by showing the number of women who attend regular training past the basic carry class (hint, it's way less women than you'd hope). She drew parallels from other male-dominated fields and how they have fought to retain women. Her discussion on how women often feel in the firearms community (and other male-dominated fields) left my mouth agape in it's accuracy at how I have often felt. She then held back nothing as she talked about some of the common flaws in firearms training that set women up for failure or at least for being undermined in the industry. She slaughtered a few sacred cows (which I was gleeful to see butchered (there were at least two times I literally almost clapped)) and moved on to the best strategies for encouraging women. She was very frank that if you are going to teach women you have to be okay talking about and at least have a working idea of some women's issues like drawing around big breasts, discussing bra or thigh holsters, or even being able to address long fingernails and how it relates to shooting. In short, if you want women to come to your classes, you need to make them feel like they belong in a human space vs feeling like they are guests in a man's house.
After lunch I was off to Jim Higginbotham, a former instructor at Gunsite, from Riposte Training. His lecture was called "Fire for Effect" and entirely centered on how the body reacts to gunfire and how bullets may (or may not) physically stop a determined attacker. He discussed the factors that influence incapacitation, how one should train to maximize the effectiveness of their shots if they are needed and what physically needs to be achieved in order to stop a determined attacker instantly, rapidly or marginally. He addressed head-on the growing concept that it's better to spread your shots around vs making tight groups and how ineffective that can be. He addressed the issue of training scars developed through targets with poorly defined targeting zones and concluded with practice tips on improving ability to make better incapacitating shots.
My last class on Friday was Chuck Haggard, a former SWAT officer and current supervisory officer in Kansas. I had the privilege to meet Chuck at the Rangemaster Instructor Development class in September and we've kept in touch ever since. His block of instruction was on Active Shooters/Terrorist Events. Chuck has been personally involved in two active shooter events and his unique perspective was insightful when going through some of the information. A good majority of the class was going over many of the major active shooter events and discussing the tactics used by law enforcement and what worked and what didn't as far as slowing or stopping the events. He talked about what motivates active shooters and what civilians can do to better prepare for an active shooter event.
Saturday morning started with a four-hour block of instruction by John Hearne; a Rangemaster instructor, federal law enforcement officer and self-proclaimed research geek; called "Performance Under Fire." He gave the four-hour version of an eight-hour class and if I ever get the chance to take it in more depth you will find me there. A long-held belief is that humans are predestined to become quivering masses of unpredictable goo when confronted with traumatic events. John's lecture went over the brain, how it works and functions with other body systems to respond to emergencies, why it is conditioned to do what it does under stress and how it can be optimized to respond better or entirely differently. He explained the difference between the neocortex and limbic system and their roles in traumatic events and how to keep the neocortex in control. He defined what it meant to be untrained, to have learned a skill and what was an overlearned skill. My favorite part of his lecture was what he called the "Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse" that took on the concepts of heart-rate being a key factor in performance, the idea that a "natural" response is somehow superior vs an overlearned response, the famed "startle-response" we all train to start from, the supposed innate aversion we are said to have against killing other humans, and whether or not we really do loose our ability to perform fine motor skills and see something as small as a front sight when fighting for our lives. He concluded his lecture with training tips and tips for instructors on how to maximize student learning. All-in-all a very intensive and eye-opening block of instruction.
And from there I stood in line for twenty minutes waiting to attend Craig Douglas' workshop on Managing Unknown Contacts. Craig Douglas is often known through his former screen name "Southnarc." As his handle would suggest, he was an undercover narcotics officer who has since retired and started his own training company called shivworks. The man has a stellar reputation in the training community that is well-deserved. Many of his techniques were developed directly from his own experience interacting on a regular basis with the criminal element. The workshop was based around the simple premise that you are being approached by an unknown individual. You need to decide whether or not this individual is a potential threat with enough time and/or distance to do something about it if it turns out this individual means you harm. We spent most of the instruction block working his three-part interaction system of Verbalizing, Moving and preparing your Hands for action. He then went over four of the most common pre-fight indicators and we practiced identifying them in class. Lastly, we talked about what to do if we are still unsure of the genuine intent of an individual but decide we want to help them vs shutting them down. This was mostly a live-action class worked with other partners and a great exercise in staying relatively safe while deciding if someone is a legitimate threat or not.
My final Saturday class was Skip Gochenour, a retired police investigator who specialized in homicides and helped prepare cases for trial. Skip's lecture was titled "Problem Two: On Trial." In other words, you've survived a lethal encounter (problem one) but now you are being charged with a crime (typically some form of homicide). He opened his lecture with some pretty harsh facts about the law and legal system, the hardest to accept by your average gun-totter being that the truth has absolutely no relevance in a court of law. If a question cannot be clearly answered by the evidence it is what is considered "a jury question" at which point a prosecutor and defense attorney will both make a case on how they interpret the evidence and the jury makes a declaration and what they believe the evidence likely indicates what happened. He went over a lot of history of our legal system and broke down what four main questions a prosecutor will ask in order to determine whether or not someone acted in self defense. He then moved on to what criteria the jury will look at as to whether or not they will convict (or acquit) someone of the various degrees of murder. One of the quotes of the class that particularly resonated with me was, "When you decide you will take on problem one you agree to accept the bill and pay for problem two no matter what the cost." Be that emotional, financial, physical, legal or in prison. A sobering reminder of the responsibilities involved in carrying a firearm.
Sunday morning opened with Cecil Burch, a career martial artist and instructor. His block of instruction was titled Immediate Action in Extreme Close Quarters. In short, you've just been taken by surprise in a violent attack and you can't get to or don't have a gun. What do you do? This was another live-action workshop and we spent much of it on our feet working with partners to protect our most vital area (the head) and work on switching from a defensive posture to an offensive one and gaining ground to either fight, access tools or flee.
Next I attended Tom Givens' Active Shooter lecture. His lecture differed from Chuck's in that he did not spend a lot of time discussing individual cases but rather patterns across many active shooter events. He went over a lot of information that is already known in the community such as the fact that most active shooter events happen in gun-free zones, a large portion of them being schools, and that the shooters tend to be lone, white males with one gun. He went over the phases of an active shooter from fantasy all the way to the shooting and how the best time to stop an active shooting is in the planning or preparation stage. He discussed the difference in outcomes with civilian's have responded to active shooters vs law enforcement with the results being in favor of a civilian response. Lastly, he talked about what to do if caught up in an active shooter event and wrapped it up with an admonition to be armed and fight for abolition of gun-free zones.
After lunch was William Aprill's lecture titled, "Fatal Choices." William Aprill is a psychologist who works with criminals in a law enforcement capacity and a brilliant speaker. His lecture was primarily about what makes a criminal pick a particular individual to victimize. His initial task was to distinguish between those who are targeted and those who are victimized. Anyone can be targeted but only a portion of those are actually chosen to be victimized and that comes down to a criminal deciding whether or not that target is a "go" or "no go." How does he make the decision? William went into depth about what is called "thin-slicing" and it's connection to the intuitive mind that allows us to make instant and more-often accurate decisions about people based on very limited, external data. Facial expressions, gait, appearance, even the amount of multi-tasking we seem to be taking on in a particular moment, can all be factors in what makes a criminal decide whether or not to victimize a particular target. He talked about what we can do to lower our chances of being targeted in the first place or even "deselected" as a "go." Of all of the presentations at the conference, it was William's that fascinated me the most and has made me want to research much more into the topics of thin-slicing and how it relates to criminal choice.
Finally, when I thought I could cram no more into my little brain I sat down in Greg Ellifritz's "Armed Citizen Response to Terrorist Bombings." Anyone who has followed my blog for any length of time has seen Greg's name before. He's one of my favorite instructors and this is my third class with him. He's the author and lead instructor for Active Response Training. He holds more instructor certifications than I care to list at the moment and his topic of the day was bombs. He went over what they are, how they work, how we might be able to identify them and how they are being used by terrorists and active shooters. After pretty much letting us all in on the terrifying reality that there's not much you can do about a bomb he dampened the mood even further by alerting us to the fact that most active shooter/terrorist bombs are homemade and unstable and it's not even a safe bet to try to shoot someone, even if you are 100% sure he has a bomb. If you choose to do so you're doing so with the expectation that you're going to die and generally not going to stop the bomb from going off anyway given the instability of the device, handlers who will set it off anyway, timers, or a hit to the device that triggers it early. He did try to end it on an upbeat note by assuming if we were involved in a bombing we were far enough away or able to get to cover quickly enough to survive. He talked about steps to take to identify secondary devices, how to manage other survivors of the blast and then talked about relative safe distances and cover from certain sizes of devices (which can vary depending on device).
On that happy note we piled in our car, went for some good bbq and just about crashed in an information-overload coma.
These were only the classes I was able to attend. There were so many more I missed and am disappointed for it.
I got to meet some of my heroes and other top-name instructors, got to network with some great people and trainers, meet some of the people who have followed me for years and generally rub shoulders with some great, like-minded individuals.
In addition to the instruction, there is an ongoing pistol match which I shot on Saturday night and learned later that out of 129 shooters I came in 22. To say I was pleased would be an understatement.
I'm not done processing the information from the conference and I fully expect to write more in depth thoughts on several of the training blocks I attended, but for now, I'll leave you all with the admonition that if you can even remotely conceive of going to a Tactical Conference you should do so!
I plan on returning often! I hope to see you there!
But what does that mean? How does one ever know he or she is proficient? Is there a set number of rounds one has to shoot before he or she is considered proficient? A number of times each week they must practice? Is there a proficiency standard? And if there is a standard, who has set it and why? How proficient is proficient enough? And enough for what?
So that no one gets confused about what I mean when I pull out the word "proficient" let's start with the Webster definition:
"Competent or skilled in doing something or using something"
And competent means having the necessary skill, knowledge or ability to do something successfully.
You want to know if you have the necessary skill, knowledge and ability to use and shoot a firearm, if you are proficient enough to move on to an intermediate class or maybe to a shooting sport like IDPA. There are lots of levels of proficiency that are stated as requirements for certain intermediate or advanced classes and if you cannot meet those requirements then obviously you are not skilled enough for those classes but many brand new shooter do not even know when they are ready to take the next baby step unless expressly told to take it by instructors or pushed there by the natural progression of certain shooting courses.
For a very basic level shooter I break proficiency down into two parts: gun handling and shooting.
While they are directly related to one another I do not consider them the same thing. One can have outstanding gun handling but not be able to hit a fraction of their targets. Likewise, one can be a very good shot but have terrible gun handling. One must be proficient in both in order to progress. And progression is the goal. Right?
Gun handling is considered any necessary handling of a firearm up to and including firing it. This includes drawing from the holster, returning the firearm to the holster, the general attitude when holding the firearm, trigger finger discipline, the ability to abide by safety rules and administrative handling.
Shooting is the act of firing rounds at a specific target and the steps included therein--stance, grip, sight alignment, trigger press, follow through.
Many people think that the shooting part is most important. It isn't. The shooting part is relatively easy compared to gun handling. Where new shooters often struggle is gaining proficiency in gun handling and I have been known to stall entire classes until I see all of my students exhibiting proficient gun handling before allowing them to progress with their shooting. I see no point in continuing allowing my students to fire shots downrange when they cannot holster their firearm safely or keep their finger off the trigger when not shooting or keep their firearm pointed in a safe direction during magazine changes.
How do you know you have proficient gun handling?
1. You respect a firearm as a deadly weapon and treat it as such.
If you pick up a firearm it is for a purpose and if you don't have a purpose for touching it you leave it alone. You do not play games with firearms that do not involve purposeful shooting. 2. You take responsibility for every action you take with a firearm.
If handed a firearm you know how to check it and do so safely. You do not allow outside pressures to influence you to do something you know to be negligent or unsafe. 3. You know and can follow the four rules of gun safety.
No one has to tell you to keep your finger off the trigger or to watch your muzzle (especially during reloads, holstering, drawing, etc). 4. You know the parts of your firearm and can use the functions with relative ease.
You know the difference between your safety (if your firearm is equipped with one) and your slide stop and you don't confuse the two. You know what the take-down levels are for and how to use them. 5. You can maintain your own firearm.
You can take it apart and clean it adequately.
If you still aren't sure if you are a proficient gun handler, have someone (preferably an instructor) watch you shoot. If he or she has to tell you to watch your muzzle or your trigger finger or be careful about where you point your firearm during reloads or to be more careful with the way you hold your gun when you reholster, then no, you are not a proficient gun handler yet. Don't disparage. Keep practicing and get better!
How do you know you are a proficient shooter?
This one is simple and here it is:
1. You can hit what you're aiming at consistently and in a timely manner.
It's that simple. If you can align the sights of your firearm, press the trigger and know where the bullet is going to impact and see an impact there (while exhibiting good gun handling) you are on your way. A proficient shooter is not surprised when he or she hits his or her intended target. Additionally, many times he or she is not surprised when a shot is thrown. A proficient shooter can generally feel a bad shot and predict where the impact will be without even looking at the target.
That being said, it's entirely understandable when new shooters get excited by accurate shots. It is exciting to do something new and to do it well. But when new shooters throw a shots and are asked, "Okay, what did you do different that time?" and they says, "I don't know," they are demonstrating their lack of proficiency. A proficient shooter will tell you, "I jerked the trigger... I flinched... I forgot my follow-through." A proficient shooter knows the fundamentals and how to apply them as well as when they forgot them.
That doesn't mean those fundamentals are perfectly mastered and that there are no errors or work to be done, but the fundamentals are there. It doesn't mean one is never confused about an error that suddenly pops up that they can't immediately diagnose, especially as they attempt new distances and speeds or switch to a new firearm.
This picture was taken exactly one month after my 21st birthday. It's one of my first targets
before I took any additional gun classes past the basics class. Note the self-diagnostic note to myself.
There is no magical round count that makes a shooter proficient. There is no magical number of range visits or classes. I have had proficient basic shooters in as little as one hour. As one of my students put it, "I don't see what all the fuss is about. You just aim and press the trigger." In as little as a few magazines she could tell me how to shoot well and could tell when she messed up and why. I've also seen individuals shoot daily for months and never gain in accuracy or be able to tell me what he's doing right or wrong. Each individual is different and learns at a different pace.
If you aren't there yet, that's okay! Take a class with someone who is good at teaching beginners and diagnosing shooting errors. If you're struggling with gun handling, do dry fire practice in a safe place being exceptionally conscious of muzzle and trigger finger awareness. If you're having a recurring issue, seek help. Very few shooting issues are are solved by simply throwing ammo at them. It often takes reworking of the basics and feeling what is working and what is not.
Some will disagree with me and say that my standard of proficiency is far too low. When I started looking at what I would base my standard on I started seeing that while lots of people will opine about what makes one proficient in this venue or at that task does not tell someone they are ready to even attempt those skills. So I thought about what I would consider an a minimum baseline of firearms proficiency.
Now allow me to remind you that this is proficiency at an extremely basic level. This is what I would expect to see from a student coming out of a basic pistol class or enrolling in an intermediate class with no specified requirement of proficiency.
This does not mean you are proficient in gun fighting and the laws thereof. This does not mean you are proficient in combat. This does not mean you are proficient at moving and shooting. This does not mean you are proficient in extreme close quarters gun fighting or partner tactics, or shooting from unusual positions, or shooting one handed or shooting moving targets, or shooting moving targets while moving, or room clearing, or shooting from or at vehicles, articulating why you chose to do what you did, etc, etc, etc.
In other words, this does not automatically make you a gunfighter. (Here's a secret for you. I don't consider myself a gunfighter, either.)
Don't get ahead of yourself. Just because you passed a basic safety course doesn't mean you know all there is to know about shooting, particularly defensive shooting. But don't get too discouraged either. The first step is often the hardest and once you've become proficient at gun handling and basic shooting, the other skills can be added, sometimes quite quickly.
If you wonder if you're ready to advance, take a look at your gun handling and shooting. Take a look at the classes you are looking forward to attending and see if any of them have minimum requirements for enrollment. If the minimum requirement is that you be able to consistently hit a man-sized target at 25 yards or be able to do a 5x5 drill (five shots in a five-inch circle at five yards in five seconds from the holster) and you can't do it or have never tried it, then instead of being discouraged, consider it an opportunity to work towards a new level of proficiency!
And if you want to test how you are progressing, here is a great list of drills you can attempt on your own to challenge you: Pistol Training Drills
I've been in the firearms community for well over six years. While appendix carry (the practice of carrying a firearm inside the waistband, forward of the hip bones) was around back then I couldn't give you the name of a single person I knew who carried that way. Then, again, perhaps my circle of gun-totting friends was a lot smaller back then.
Today, appendix carry (or AIWB) has risen in popularity and gained quite a foothold with many long-time shooters and trainers. The last two trainings I've attended had several AIWB shooters in them, my husband carries AIWB and several of the well-known instructors I have been following over the years carry AIWB.
AIWB is not a new method of carry by any means. For as long as people have been carrying guns they have been sticking them down the front of their pants. Hand a dummy gun to someone who's never carried a gun before in his or her life, tell them to hide it on their person and a good majority of the time you will see them attempt to AIWB carry it. It's even the preferred method of your average bad guy (sans the holster). It's a very logical place to carry and hide a firearm.
For a long time (and still in certain circles) the AIWB carry method has been demonized as unsafe or as a "gangsta" way to carry. It was purported that those with training and "in the know" carried behind the hip and only those who were careless and didn't mind being viewed as a "bad guy" carried AIWB.
But while the nay-sayers blasted well-meaning carriers with threats of blowing off manhood and bleeding to death from a negligent femoral artery shots, those who are willing to judge the method dispassionately and have confident handling of their firearms are finding it a valid and possibly ideal means of carry.
The benefits of AIWB have been well-established but in case you may have missed them here they are:
- Ease of access
Our arms, though capable of reaching behind our hip, are not naturally inclined to reach there. Our natural work space for our hands and arms is in front of our hip bones. We are strongest and fastest when we work in that area and we can better handle and access items kept in that area.
- Time
Because we are stronger and faster when dealing with things in our arms natural work zone (in front of the hip bones) it stands to reason that we can work things faster in that area as well. The draw (or presentation from the holster) is often faster when we only have to reach down a few inches vs back several inches. Many long-time shooters and competitors have reported faster draw times from appendix vs hip carry. Some have seen no or very little difference in time.
- Concealment
Greg Ellifritz illustrating poor concealment
carrying behind the hip on a bicycle
This seems to depend a lot on body type, gun carried and holster. While some find appendix carry to be far more concealable, others find it less concealable. Some find it more concealable in certain situations like bike riding where behind the hip carry would be far more pronounced. Others find it difficult to conceal double-stack firearms but not single-stack. Sometimes a thick holster can make concealment harder in AIWB vs behind the hip. It cannot be denied, however, that some people have far better success concealing AIWB than other carry methods.
This also applies to concealment of the draw stroke. It's a lot easier to sneak a gun out of the holster in the AIWB position than behind the hip.
- Comfort
Again, this seems to vary widely with body type and the type of gun carried along with holster selection. I've spoken to some that find AIWB to be extremely comfortable and some that find it extremely uncomfortable. One friend of mine finds behind the hip carry to mess with her gait and cause problems in her strong-side leg. She finds AIWB to be far more comfortable and easy on her legs because the weight of the firearm is more centrally located on her body. Some find that the muzzle of their firearm in AIWB will press uncomfortably in certain locations, especially when bending or sitting. For some this depends entirely on the size and length of the gun and holster.
- Ease of retention
Because the area in front of our hips is our natural work zone it is easily accessed by both of our hands. Because of that we can put two hands on a firearm that we are fighting to retain when it is carried in that area. From behind the hip we are limited to the hand closest to that firearm. We also have more strength when our hands are working in that natural work-zone vs stretched behind the hip.
- Ease of presentation
Anyone who has trained hard knows that in a fight for one's life it's very likely you may not be standing straight and in the ideal stance. You may have to draw from seated, from your back on the ground, from your side, etc. And, again, because your arms are working in a natural work zone they can better access an AIWB position than a behind the hip position from certain positions.
My attempt at concealing a double stack HK P2000SK AIWB
I don't like to give opinions about things until I've tried them myself and for a very long time I've been fooling around with AIWB.
I am a very small female and I like larger fighting guns (the Glock 19 being my regular carry gun). That particular combination does not seem to do be very conducive to AIWB. No matter how hard I tried I could not conceal a double-stack firearm AIWB. The thickness of the firearm and the holster would press out the front of my clothing and make me look at least a couple of months pregnant or clearly trying to conceal something large.
I was not willing to go to something so small as a .380 unless it was as a back up gun. My own personal standards are that my primary carry gun will be a 9mm, have a full size grip and good sights. Many of your pocket .380s obviously do not fit those criteria and finding a thin, single stack 9mm meant I had to give up the capacity I've grown to love in my 19.
Because carrying behind my hip had never been a problem for me I never prioritized AIWB carry.
Glock 19, 4 o'clock
S&W Shield, AIWB
at ECQ
But after making a plea on Facebook to try AIWB again, an instructor friend of mine and gunsmith, David Bowie, from Bowie Tactical Concepts and instructor at the Tactical Defense Institute offered to let me borrow his S&W M&P Shield in 9mm and AIWB holster for the duration of the Extreme Close Quarters gunfighting class I took the first week of Oct.
I arrived on the first day and he had the gun and holster waiting for me. My immediate instinct was to put the firearm dead-center on the front of my body, right below my belly button and directly beneath my belt buckle.
After getting the gun and holster on I covered it with my shirt and went to show the instructors, Greg Ellifritz and David Bowie. While I was already seeing a huge improvement in my ability to conceal the single-stack 9mm they helped me adjust it to the right of my belly button and into the natural hollow just inside my strong-side hip bone. I was concerned that the grip would print more in that location but it was not an issue.
I was also immediately impressed with how comfortable it was. The gun was short and small enough not to press on the crease of my thigh when I sat or dig into my ribs when I bent over. Immediately, I ran through some deep squats, bends and twists to check for comfort and found it to be exceptionally comfortable.
I definitely wanted to try this new method of carry throughout the course of the class, however, it was not how I normally carried. It seemed counter-productive to do a whole class with a method of carry and gun I didn't use so I kept my Glock 19 behind my hip where it normally would sit. I decided to run the whole weekend with both guns, splitting each drill and exercise between the two guns and carry methods.
The holster I was using was a modified Comptac 2 o'clock holster that
had the sweat shield cut off and a c-clip instead of the loop. It was a
decent holster and did well but the c-clip was not as secure as I would
have liked due to it being a little big for my belt. The gun tended to
tip in throughout the weekend and while it was never a problem I found
myself having to readjust after any rigorous activity. I don't think I would have had that problem had my belt and the c-clip been better fitted to one another.
Yes, I looked a little paranoid running both guns all weekend (including spare magazines for each and a TDI knife) but it was a great experience!
Bowie's modified CompTac 2 o'clock
with an M&P
Before class started I took Greg aside and asked him to give me a really quick crash course in drawing and holstering from AIWB so I did it safely as, though I'd tried AIWB before, I'd never actually done live-fire from the position nor had any real-world experience with it.
He reminded me that the most dangerous and important part of safely carrying AIWB was re-holstering (which is true of behind the hip carry as well). Because of where the gun is located, a careless reholster could mean a bullet in the inside thigh with potential of hitting the femoral artery. I also wanted to make sure that I didn't have the tendency to draw the firearm and sweep everyone to my left by pulling the gun in an awkward manner before pointing it straight down range. Greg watched my draw a couple of times, patted me on the back and called it good and we started class.
Getting to work both methods of carry simultaneously allowed me to immediately compare their methods. Interestingly, the hardest part of the weekend was remembering which spare magazine to reach for when I needed to reload with either firearm. There were at least two times I tried inserting a Glock 19 magazine into the the single-stack Shield.
The ECQ class was a great environment wherein to try AIWB for the first time and to compare it to the traditional behind the hip style of carry. In addition to shooting (which can be the least difficult part of using a firearm in self defense) we worked gun retention, drawing and shooting from unusual positions, one-handed operation, contact shooting, fighting to the gun and so much more. There really was no better way to directly compare both methods of carry.
I started immediately liking AIWB carry. It was easier to defend and very comfortable. It was concealable and the draw was quick and easy. I have strong confidence in my gun handling so I did not have a moment of fear or hesitation on either the presentation from or return to the holster.
I did not, however, like my depleted ammo supply. I found it very frustrating to have to reload the Shield so often and at one point, while clearing a jam in the Shield, I discarded a partially full magazine, reached for the spare and realized that had been my spare. I quickly switched to my Glock but felt that rush of heat knowing had that been a real encounter and I was limited to the one, low-capacity gun, I'd be out.
I liked shooting the Shield. It was comfortable and it was accurate and it had already had a trigger job so it was just as good to shoot as my Glock. It's low-profile top did not lend itself to easy one-handed operations like racking the slide but a new pair of rear sights would fix that. My Glock felt more familiar every time it was in my hand solely for the reason it's been my training and carry gun for far more years than the Shield. Even so, I could see myself picking up a Shield in the near future.
When Sunday rolled around and it was time for the force-on-force scenarios with Greg I offhandedly joked that I would continue to carry both guns. At which point Greg said, "Good, twice and many chances to disarm you."
I realized that it might be time to choose a single method of carry. I thought about it hard and, after sizing Ellifritz up a few times, opted for the Shield in the AIWB position.
During the first scenario he didn't attempt to go for my gun. We ended up on the ground with myself on my back underneath of him. I kicked him off of me, draw the Shield from AIWB and simulated shooting him in the chest and head.
I watched the video later and wondered if the Glock carried behind the hip would have been easier or similar in that particular position.
I had good distance. I had pushed him away with my feet. I would have had to have rolled a bit to my side to gain access to my Glock but I don't think it would have been much of a hindrance. I believe I would have been able to get a similar shot off had I been carrying behind the hip vs AIWB.
Below you can watch the first scenario.
In the second scenario we started on the ground with Greg on top of me. The point of this exercise was to illustrate that even if you have a lethal force tool and are completely justified in using lethal force, you may have to fight quite a bit before you can access that tool.
Greg later admitted to cheating. The rules were that he was only supposed to go for your gun if he saw it but he decided to go for my gun anyway. He didn't remember which carry method I chose and was reaching behind my hip. Watching the video later there is at least one moment where he probably would have been able to take my gun if I'd been carrying behind the hip vs AIWB. Carrying AIWB I was able to use his body as a means of retention. When I felt him trying to reach for my gun I would drop my hips below his or lay on top of him, pinning my gun between us so that he couldn't access it. It worked very well and even though I wasn't able to access the gun during the fight, I was able to get to my knife and cut him in the groin and get out of the situation.
I thought long and hard how that scenario would have been different had I been carrying behind the hip. He may have been able to take my Glock away from me easier but I may have been more aware of that and tried harder to keep it away from him instead of finding security in his inaccessibility to my AIWB carried Shield.
Below is the video of the second scenario.
The bottom line is that I felt AIWB would be easier to retain and that is why I chose that method of carry when I ran those scenario vs behind the hip.
If I could conceal my Glock 19 AIWB I would switch methods of carry tomorrow. I have been convinced of the superiority of that method for certain situations, particularly retaining the firearm and I see no benefit of behind the hip carry over AIWB other than possible concealment and comfort issues with less-than-ideal body types.
For me, my hesitation rests only in the fact that it would require me to downgrade to a lower capacity firearm to successfully conceal AIWB and I am very hesitant to give up my 16 rounds of 9mm in a gun I know I can conceal well behind the hip for 7 or 8 carried AIWB. I have not been able to decide if the benefits of AIWB outweigh the drawbacks of the low capacity.
I find what Todd Green said in this article regarding capacity to be quite accurate regarding my own feelings:
Bullets are opportunities. They’re options. Having more of them is always better than having less, even if you don’t need them.
I may find myself switching between the modes of carry in the near future as I am saving up for a S&W M&P Shield. And when I get said gun I will be carrying it AIWB. Who knows, maybe I'll carry both. There really is no quicker reload than grabbing a fresh gun!
Yesterday, I was an assistant instructor for a basic pistol class. While the classroom was heated and comfortable the range was outdoors and we are in full-blown winter. It was twenty degrees and windy. Getting out of the wind was tolerable if you were stomping your feet and well dressed for the cold but standing in the wind was a bit like getting hit in the face with ice cubes. Any exposed skin immediately started to sting, turn red, tingle and finally go numb. Or, in the case of hands, induced incredible shaking.
We instructors did our best to put our backs to the wind and stand between it and our students to shield them at least a little bit but it wasn't much use. If you were on the firing line you were going to wish you weren't.
My first student on the line didn't have anything for his head more substantial than a baseball cap and he had no gloves. Before he shot he needed to show me that he could safely manipulate his firearm and then take the required number of shots. By the time he was half-way through the manual of arms his hands began to shake, badly. I let him put his hands back in his pockets for a few moments and we went through the shots as quickly as we could. He had to stop a few times to put his hands in his pockets or cover his ears and face. To say he was miserable would be an understatement. He did very well considering the circumstances.
My next student was better prepared with a hat and a hood and thick leather working gloves. He got to the line and picked up the gun to show me he could operate it safely and couldn't operate it at all with his gloves on. While his gloves were ideal for working in a field or digging a ditch, they were too thick and too big for use operating a firearm. He had to take them off to operate anything but the slide and, like the first student, as soon as his hands were exposed to such cold they began to tremble. He did an amazing job of shooting through the tremble, however, and got one of the best groups I've ever seen in a first timer, cold or not.
This pattern repeated itself over and over again. Those who had gloves had thick winter gloves or even mittens that they had to take off in order to shoot. Many of them couldn't fit their gloved finger into the trigger guard, especially on the smaller baby 9mms and .380s that are popular in concealed carry. Those who didn't have gloves were so cold they could barely feel their flesh or had trouble operating their firearms because their hands began to get stiff and unfeeling.
Despite it all, they did very well and I'd love to see them all back on a warmer day.
As for myself, the only gloves I had were the cheap, knit gloves you can buy a pair of at WalMart for $1.
While my hands were chilly they were not ice-cold. The gloves protected me from the biting cold wind, but were thin enough for me to operate every gun well enough to demonstrate and shoot.
As far as the students I worked with, there was only one other young man--an avid hunter with well fit hunting gloves and a full-size XD--who had no problems with gloves and operating his firearm.
I had learned long ago that if you are going to carry in cold weather you need to address shooting and how that cold is going to effect your hands and shooting ability. I have shot many times with hands so cold I could not feel them. If forced to shoot without gloves, it's nice to know that until frozen stiff, my hands will still work enough to shoot. But I've also tried other types of gloves to the point where I'm willing to suffer a little cold for thinner gloves that fit well enough to not impede my operation of the gun.
I know there are shooting gloves out there that are quite pricey that likely work very well for most. I've given up trying them. Mostly because I have extremely short fingers which leave excess material at the top of the fingers of most gloves that can impede my ability to operate a firearm well. But I can buy 10 pair of knit gloves for $5 and stick them in all of the pockets of every coat I own as well as my purse and the diaper bag. And if they tear or I need to rip them off and get rid of them there is no real loss. They may not have a lot of gripping surface but that is what texturing and cocking serrations are for. I trust those features on my firearms and they've not let me down yet.
Think about the cold but don't over think it, either. If you can find a good pair of gloves that fit you well to wear there is no bulk or excess material, they may be a good investment. Or, if you're like me, you can go cheap and stuff your pockets with cheap gloves that will be there when you need them but won't get in your way.
