• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

John Farnam - Training thoughts

I'm sick and tired of these ****tard trainers that shit on actions sports, yet on the infinitesimally small chance they have the balls to show up at a match, they get their ass kicked because they don't have the basic fundamentals to shoot a static target in a no stress environment. Then the excuses start, how its bad training, how it will get you killed in a real fight... blah, blah, blah. But somehow, in a high stress environment with moving targets, these trainer are going to suddenly have the fundamental needed to make the shot. Maybe the F'en "tactical fairy" is going to bless them with skill.

Any trainer that can not show up to a local USPSA match and win is a fraud
 
+1 to Supermoto. I wouldn't say a trainer who can't win is a fraud, as winning a match takes some game specific skills (stage breakdown etc), but they should be able to run with the pack.
 
Supermoto
You are a bit over the top, maybe too much caffeine.
Let's agree to a few simple things
The skills needed to win in a match Have nothing to do with tactical shooting.
The skills to survive in an actual shooting situation have nothing to do with match shooting
Both have one thing in common, in that they involve accurate shooting.
Matchs have rules the other does not
They are not the same and can not and should not be compared.
I am not against match shooting in any form
Any shooting time under stress in a good thing
Enough said
 
Last edited:
Supermoto
You are a bit over the top, maybe too much caffeine.
Let's agree to three simple things
The skills needed to win in a match Have nothing to do with tactical shooting.
The skills to survive in an actual shooting situation have nothing with match shooting
Both have one thing in common, in that they involve accurate shooting.
Matchs have rules the does not
They are not the same and can not and should not be compared.e

We can argue all day long on tactical vs match shooting. The issue is how much the author shit on match shooting. The author better hope he's fast when it comes down to it. I know plenty of guys who are "match" shooters that could put him in to the dirt in a dark alley if the time ever came.
 
The skills needed to win in a match Have nothing to do with tactical shooting.
The skills to survive in an actual shooting situation have nothing to do with match shooting

When it comes to the actual shooting part, No. Execute the fundamentals better and faster than the other guy. That is it

Matches remove the stress, the unknown, people trying to kill you, etc. Leaving only the fundamental, a match should be a cake walk for a self defense trainer.
 
Supermoto
I agree that good shooting is important, but your tactics what can keep you alive longer.
Matches teach you nothing about how survive a bad situation, just how to shoot fast and accurately
Have you ever had to search a building for a possible BG
Did a match ever give you tunnel vision, or time slowing down?
I sincerely hope that you never have to find how wrong you are.
 
Matches remove the stress, the unknown, people trying to kill you, etc. Leaving only the fundamental, a match should be a cake walk for a self defense trainer.

Time is your enemy in a match. In a gunfight, it's can be a friend - there is no penalty assessed for ensconcing behind cover.

We can argue all day long on tactical vs match shooting. The issue is how much the author shit on match shooting. The author better hope he's fast when it comes down to it. I know plenty of guys who are "match" shooters that could put him in to the dirt in a dark alley if the time ever came.

I have no problem with the tactical folks who can deliver the goods. Define a reasonable test of competence using street gear, go up against an accomplished match shooter using rules that objectively measure performance and meet your definition of tactical, and show us how it's done. Don't expect to impress us by watching Sevigny or Leatham shoot and then muttering something like "gamesman; he'd not have a chance against the likes of me in a gunfight since I am skooked in that thar tactical stuff".

Have you ever had to search a building for a possible BG
I suppose the chances of having to do this rank right up there with the need for a civilian to do a dynamic explosive entry on a building. It's a specialized skill a bit out of the norm for civilian self defense. Especially when Supermoto can just send in his wife. For non-LEOs, the vast majority of situations are close and personal - not clearing buildings, serving warrants, executing a search and sealing rooms once covered, pieing rooms with a partner, etc.

Did a match ever give you tunnel vision, or time slowing down?

I expect the answer will be yes. A good run is often accompanied with the feeling that it just didn't feel any where near as fast as the timer said it is.
 
Last edited:
Supermoto
You are a bit over the top, maybe too much caffeine.
Let's agree to a few simple things
The skills needed to win in a match Have nothing to do with tactical shooting.
The skills to survive in an actual shooting situation have nothing to do with match shooting
Both have one thing in common, in that they involve accurate shooting.
Matchs have rules the other does not
They are not the same and can not and should not be compared.
I am not against match shooting in any form
Any shooting time under stress in a good thing
Enough said
I have taken more than a few "tactical" shooting classes. I've also competed in IDPA, though I am nowhere near Supermoto's skill level.

Certainly there are things that you do in a match that you wouldn't do in a real gunfight. On the other hand, competition teaches you to draw quickly, shoot quickly and accurately, shoot on the move, get into and out of positions of cover quickly, reload quickly, look at a situation and come up with a plan, and clear malfunctions quickly -- and all of those things are very, very important if you actually ever do get in a real gunfight. Furthermore, unlike a three-day class that you take once, competition every other week compels you to constantly train and improve your skills.

I've learned a lot taking classes. I've learned a lot competing. But saying that the skills needed to win a match have nothing to do with "tactical shooting" is nonsense and comes across as an excuse for not being able to compete effectively -- come out to a match and show us otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Have you ever had to search a building for a possible BG
Did a match ever give you tunnel vision, or time slowing down?
There are simulated room clearing stages in matches, and, yes, I have experienced significant stress during some matches -- less so now that I've been competing for a while.
I sincerely hope that you never have to find how wrong you are.
Come out to an IDPA match and see the other side.
 
Supermoto
I agree that good shooting is important, but your tactics what can keep you alive longer.
Matches teach you nothing about how survive a bad situation, just how to shoot fast and accurately
Have you ever had to search a building for a possible BG
Did a match ever give you tunnel vision, or time slowing down?
I sincerely hope that you never have to find how wrong you are.

You are making my point, look at all the factors involved is self defense shooting. Being able to shoot well under all these stresses requires tremendous fundamental skill. So when you remove all these extra factors, and get down to the actual shooting, nothing else. A match should be a cake walk for a self defense trainer.


And yes I have had time slow down and tunnel vision on stages. .
 
Come out to an IDPA match and see the other side.

How about an "NES Challenge?". Trainers who feel that competition is useless can design a skills test that pits the grizzled veterans of the mean streets and their tactical skill set against the cordwood (I mean competition shooters) and see how the performances compare. The only requirement would be simple objective rules; nothing where a grizzled veteran serves as a judge and gives points for things like proper exercise of command voice.

Some of these people who insult competition shooting can indeed deliver the goods. I took a a John Farnham class about 15 years ago and, although he derided competition shooting, John could do every skills test he included in his class on demand, first time, every time. Funny thing - only 3 students in his class could. Guess what? Out of his class of about a dozen, only 3 were competition shooters [grin]
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with the tactical folks who can deliver the goods. Define a reasonable test of competence using street gear, go up against an accomplished match shooter using rules that objectively measure performance and meet your definition of tactical, and show us how it's done. Don't expect to impress us by watching Sevigny or Leatham shoot and then muttering something like "gamesman; he'd not have a chance against the likes of me in a gunfight since I am skooked in that thar tactical stuff".

How many people has Dave S. or Rob L. tucked in for a dirt nap? I have no doubt that either would be an asset in a real life 2 way range but until they have they are just another competition shooter.

It's a different story when the cardboard is shooting back.
 
How many people has Dave S. or Rob L. tucked in for a dirt nap? I have no doubt that either would be an asset in a real life 2 way range but until they have they are just another competition shooter.

It's a different story when the cardboard is shooting back.
I'm sure it is. That said, how many people do you think your average tactical trainer has tucked in for a dirt nap? I'd bet it is exactly the same number as Dave S. or Rob L.

Some of the things some trainers teach are very good. And others are just as stupid as some of the foolish things we do in competition. As an example, consider the Gunsite reload: gently toss the gun in your strong hand so that it is now canted to the left, with the left of the gun now canted more closely towards you, push the mag release, replace the mag, using an overhand motion, retract the slide, shift the gun to reacquire your proper grip. If you ever have to do an emergency reload in a gunfight, guess what, it is a real emergency -- you ran dry while there are people who need shooting.

Back when I took a Randy Cain class some years back, there was an instructor from a NH PD next to me. He was a good shooter, clearly better than me. He did that beautiful Gunsite reload. It was a ballet, a karate kata. But it was slower than molasses.

In the meantime, I've completed my emergency reload in at least 1/2 a second faster, and I'm not very good.
 
I'm sure it is. That said, how many people do you think your average tactical trainer has tucked in for a dirt nap? I'd bet it is exactly the same number as Dave S. or Rob L.

I don't train with those guys. They teach fundamentals and competition. The guys who have killed bad guys teach the things that fundamentals and competition don't teach you.
 
How many people has Dave S. or Rob L. tucked in for a dirt nap? I have no doubt that either would be an asset in a real life 2 way range but until they have they are just another competition shooter.

It's a different story when the cardboard is shooting back.

Competitors like TGO and TJ spend a good amount of time training "Operators". They aren't there to teach how to survive a gun fight, they are there to teach one aspect of it, shooting fundamentals.

My point is not that "gamers" are better in a gun fight because of superior fundamentals, But instead how can a self defense shooter/trainer be worth his salt if he can not execute the fundamental in the most basic test of them, USPSA
 
I don't train with those guys. They teach fundamentals and competition. The guys who have killed bad guys teach the things that fundamentals and competition don't teach you.

Understood. I have never been an "operator" nor do aspire to rise to "grizzled veteran of the mean streets". I'm just a normal person who enjoys recreational shooting and competition.

I did have an interesting talk with one person who has "been there, done that". He's not into bragging, but his buddy did tell us that this person's absence from matches for a year was because he was in Afghanistan dealing with peaceful religious emissaries. I was waiting to shoot a stage at an indoor match at the Boston Rifle and Gun Association when I asked how this compared to the real thing. He told me he experiences more anxiety waiting to shoot a stage than he ever did engaging the Taliban, and that the stages at Harvard were more challenging than the firefights he was in.

So, I expect there are a variety of perspectives.
 
9 Aug 11

Alternate comments on competition, from a well-known Instructor:

...Competition attracts many shallow and self-centered, and they don't, as a rule, make enjoyable, nor particularly beneficial, company...

...As shallow as they often are, gun-gamers sometimes serve as (involuntary) theoretic researchers. Once a potentially useful discovery is made, those of us in the real world can sometimes develop it into genuinely useable technology and technique...

...However, for the sake of the relentless advancement of our Art, we can never hesitate to take advantage of emerging technology and techniques when they clearly demonstrate a practical advance, no matter the source...


I'm afraid the term 'reformed' IPSC shooter is a misnomer - I'd bet he just couldn't compete. That must've been hard on the ego. I never realized how destructive the 'competitive' mindset could be - good thing I'm not trying to win a gunfight.
 
I never realized how destructive the 'competitive' mindset could be - good thing I'm not trying to win a gunfight.

Yeah, training to be able to execute the fundamentals subconciously at speed will kill you for sure.

Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk
 
Genuine Operators are quiet, courteous, and generally acquiescent, having little interest in "proving" anything. Braggarts, boasters, cock-a-hoops, and assorted other vainglorious frauds are interested only in self-aggrandizement and penis-envy.

WTF? Penis envy, vainglorious, cock-a-hoops, "genuine operators?" It reads like Sarah Brady hired Jeff Cooper to ghostwrite a parody of mall ninjas.

Though I will say, using vainglorious with penis envy... well done!
 
Gun safety NOT

I assume that no one will argue about this

1 Sept 11

Blame-shifting as "SOP:"

In West Virginia last Tuesday, three wounds were inflicted, on two deputies, by a single bullet. The 45-caliber bullet (45ACP or 45GAP, unclear as to which), fired from a Glock (model unknown), produced a hand-wound on one deputy and an additional hand-wound on the second deputy, as well as a separate hip-wound. Both deputies were hospitalized, but none of the wounds appear to be life-threatening.

The discharge was accidental and took place at the home of one of the deputies, as the pistol in question was being "worked on." Both wounded deputies are also Department Armorers!

In a statement to the media, the Undersheriff said the department-owned pistol in question "malfunctioned," causing the accidental injuries.

Oh, please!

I strongly suspect the pistol did not "malfunction," but, in fact, functioned perfectly, just as it is designed to! It was allowed to point in an unsafe direction as someone, or something, simultaneously applied pressure to the trigger.

The culprit here (as is nearly always the case) is likely careless
gun-handling, not defectively-designed, nor "malfunctioning" guns. Otherwise,
one would wonder why all these police departments continue to knowingly buy "
faulty" guns.

And, careless gun-handling will never be eliminated, nor even addressed effectively, when we, apparently as a matter of policy, continue to excuse/deny our own carelessness/negligence, invariably shifting blame, robotlike, in another direction.

How is it that we're supposed to solve a problem, when we're prohibited from even mentioning the problem?

Guns will be in our lives, continuously, forever! We have to learn how to live with them. The "always-unloaded/never-ready" philosophy has served us poorly, as its exponents routinely treat/handle guns like toys.
Accidents happen when "dangerous" guns get mixed in with "safe" ones, as they do, without fail... as we see!

We need to always think of our guns as what they are: deadly weapons, there to protect us, not just as instrumentalities of recreation, there merely to amuse and entertain, like a golf club or tennis racket.

In short, we need to get serious. We need to always be taking of business... or, get out of business!

"The sword is a great benefit, and necessary to preserve peace... and prevent evil"

Luther

"Far better an approximate answer to the right question, than the exact answer to an irrelevant question, which, by the way, can always be made more precise!"

Tukey

/John
 
Empty Chamber

3 Feb 12

"It's not occasional 'great shots' that save you. It's persistent 'little mistakes' that kill you"
Hubert "Hubey" Green

"Safety" and "Readiness"With serious guns, "safety" and "readiness" are mutually antagonistic. The more ready the gun, the less safe. The more safe, the less ready. Genuine Operators thus have choices to make, none of which will ever be perfect. Guns that are acutely ready are acutely dangerous. Conversely, guns that are perfectly safe are perfectly useless!

Happily, our current generation of serious pistols is a product of centuries of user-experience, good and bad, and are thus designed and manufactured so that a reasonable compromise is readily attainable for most, under most circumstances. When there are accidents with guns, robot-like, the naive invariably blame the gun. However, I've been involved in many of these cases, and continue to be involved as I write this, and I can say with a high degree of confidence that a genuinely "defective" gun, that is: (1) a gun with a bona-fide manufacturing defect, or (2) one that, by virtue of its very design, in "inherently" defective, is rare indeed. Nearly unheard-of with modern, reputable firearms.

However, this integral safety/readiness conflict, with the assistance of persistent myths and fables, has often generated unwise habits among thenaive: (1) those who endlessly talk about guns, but don't actually carry one, and even (2) those who actively compete in shooting 'sports,' but (you guessed it!), don't personally carry a gun in public. For aspiring Operators (who do!), such foolish habits are ill-advised, sometimes deadly!

For example, the "empty-chamber" carry mode.

At the SHOT Show last month, I heard a representative of a major gun-manufacturer say to an attendee, "Oh, I never carry my pistol with a round chambered. It's too dangerous!" The naive attendee nodded his callow head in approval! I seriously doubt that this particular gun-company employeeactually carries a gun at all (in any condition), nor ever has. He assuredlywasn't at the time. It is disturbing indeed to hear such blatant ignorance coming from the mouth of someone who works for a gun company. Carried with an empty chamber, most modern autoloading pistols are not one bit "safer"than if a live round were in the chamber, but they are a good deal less useful.

The vast majority of modern, autoloading pistols are designed and manufactured to be mechanically "drop-safe." That is, no external blow to thepistol, no matter the severity, will cause the pistol to discharge. Puttingcontinuous pressure on the trigger is the sole method for persuading these weapons to fire. On most pistols currently manufactured, five to seven pounds of trigger resistance is considered about right for most users, under most serious circumstances. Heaver triggers make it difficult to shoot the pistol quickly, with sufficient accuracy. Lighter triggers make it too likely the pistol will discharge as a result of unintentional/inadvertent contact of a finger with the trigger. Again, most of us think five to seven pounds makes a reasonable compromise between safety and speed.

When the pistol is thus fully seated within a suitable holster, the entire trigger-guard will be enclosed, and the trigger thus inaccessible to fingers and other objects. So, when a loaded pistol is holstered, it is, by definition, inert. It cannot fire, and is thus safe to carry as one goes about his daily duties, regardless of what they entail. Even when you fall off a cliff, drop one thousand feet, and land on concrete, you'll be dead of course, but your pistol will still be in the holster, unfired!So, what is the advantage associated with carrying such a pistol, in a holster, with the chamber empty?

None!

The "empty-chamber-carry" method provides the user with no "safety" advantage, but it makes the pistol a good deal less useful.

So, why do certain people still insist on carrying that way?

They are willfully, arrogantly naive and impervious to logic, even when their very lives are in the balance. They probably shouldn't own a gun, nor anything else dangerous.

Other bad habits include "prepping" the trigger, that is, starting pressure on the trigger at a point in your draw well before the pistol's sights are anywhere near to being on target. This, of course, makes aborting a shot at the last instant nearly impossible.

Another is the persistent handling of "empty" guns in a careless, inattentive manner. When you have "safe" guns and "dangerous" guns in your life, sooner or later you'll get them mixed in with each other!

Once again, when you carry and handle serious guns every day, for serious purposes, none of the foregoing bad habits have any place in your life.

As we all know, and even talk about (albeit in whispers), all of Western Civilization is in a downward spiral. The future will hold a place for only two kinds of people, the quick and the dead. The stupid will be conspicuous only by virtue of their absence!

As I'm sometimes compelled to remind my students:Get serious, or get out!

/John
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom