Demonstrating as a trainer

[kgunz11]

Keep in mind Jim, I'm talking about NRA classes being Basic Pistol for example.

[kgunz11]

This came in today from one of my NRA Training Counselors. It seems the "no live fire demo" is something they teach and not specifically a requirement of the NRA, but MANY NRA training counselors teach the same thing.

Hi Bobby,

First and foremost the NRA 's main concern is SAFETY! If you are not able to see what all of your students are doing at all times, there is a safety issue thus a liability issue... especially when instructing beginners BUT advanced shooters alike. You as the Lead Instructor must have complete control of the range. Turning your back to shoot is simply not safe. If an accident were to occur while you were demonstrating, you would likely be charged with negligence at best. So first and foremost is SAFETY.

Second, lets say you have multiple Instructors helping with a class so you are safely able to demonstrate live fire. You demonstrate a shooting technique and you happen to shoot poorly for whatever reason, have a squib load, or misfire, the students would then lose confidence in your ability to properly instruct and would likely worry they too will have a malfunction. On the other hand, let's say you shoot brilliantly, the students may then think you are "showing off" or " may feel inferior" to any shooting they are able to do. Either way, you have nothing to gain and only much to lose.

You may demonstrate all steps up to live fire in a classroom setting. I have been training all levels of shooters for over 10 years from Federal LE to the military and the private sector AND have been trained myself! I have never been in any situation where I could not properly explain/show a technique without having to demo it live fire nor have I needed to see someone live fire to figure out what was going on while I was being trained. Some like to demo an entire qualification prior to having a group qualify. I feel like following range commands is just as important so demoing it is not necessary and takes away from being able to evaluate the shooter being able to follow directions via commands.

If you feel for some reason, it is necessary, weigh all of the above and make your own decision. There is no written NRA policy about the demonstration of live fire that I am aware of.

One thing that we do with advanced students is invite them to stay and shoot with us after the class is officially over. At this point, you are no longer acting as an Instructor and would be much less responsible for their supervision and/or safety. You are on a level playing ground and everyone can "show off,""compete," or just have fun in this setting.

We also try to invite all of our students to come shoot with us any time they are in Tallahassee. Just call! Many take us up on it!

Hope this helps clarify. Best, Dawn

PS I have taken several guys to the range of recent that we transferred firearms for that they believed were not properly sighted in or did not shoot well. I always offer to shoot it before they send it back to the seller or try to check out the problem. We do it free of charge. Every time I have done this, I have shot dead on, so it was their shooting NOT the gun. While the problem was resolved, their embarrassment over not shooting well was probably not worth me helping them. I do not offer to do this anymore unless they specifically ask!

[Duane Thomas]

but MANY NRA training counselors teach the same thing.

How many NRA training counselors have you actually seen teach this? How many is MANY?

[Chills1994]

I took a look at a NRA Basic Pistol text book once about 6 months ago.

IIRC, it was probably teaching the Weaver stance. Still.

And, again, IIRC, it said somewhere to NEVER! keep loaded guns in the house.

I think if I ever went through an NRA basic pistol class... I would have a hard time keeping my mouth shut.

I think if any BE'er here has been in USPSA/IDPA/Steel Challenge for any length of time they are experienced enough or knowledgeable enough to realize that anything put out by the NRA has been politicized and/or PC'ized or maybe even focus group'ed ...and to take it with a grain of salt.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Chills1994

[Jake Di Vita]

I think if I ever went through an NRA basic pistol class... I would have a hard time keeping my mouth shut.

C'mon, you? Never.

[kgunz11]

but MANY NRA training counselors teach the same thing.

How many NRA training counselors have you actually seen teach this? How many is MANY?

I've actually SEEN four. Talking to them about it, they seem to think most of their TC friends are exactly the same way. I called a few people from my contact lists over the last few days and their TC's were all the same. Not a single TC fired a shot during any of their classes.

Is there anyone here that is an NRA Instructor that there TC fired shots during the course?

[Chills1994]

Jake wrote:

C'mon, you? Never.

In person, NO! Seriously, I am not this talkative. At a local match with "embedded" RO's, I would just rather grab the timer and RO the whole day. I am not really into small talk....believe it or NOT!

[G-ManBart]

This came in today from one of my NRA Training Counselors. It seems the "no live fire demo" is something they teach and not specifically a requirement of the NRA, but MANY NRA training counselors teach the same thing.

Hi Bobby,

First and foremost the NRA 's main concern is SAFETY! If you are not able to see what all of your students are doing at all times, there is a safety issue thus a liability issue... especially when instructing beginners BUT advanced shooters alike. You as the Lead Instructor must have complete control of the range. Turning your back to shoot is simply not safe. If an accident were to occur while you were demonstrating, you would likely be charged with negligence at best. So first and foremost is SAFETY.

Second, lets say you have multiple Instructors helping with a class so you are safely able to demonstrate live fire. You demonstrate a shooting technique and you happen to shoot poorly for whatever reason, have a squib load, or misfire, the students would then lose confidence in your ability to properly instruct and would likely worry they too will have a malfunction. On the other hand, let's say you shoot brilliantly, the students may then think you are "showing off" or " may feel inferior" to any shooting they are able to do. Either way, you have nothing to gain and only much to lose.

You may demonstrate all steps up to live fire in a classroom setting. I have been training all levels of shooters for over 10 years from Federal LE to the military and the private sector AND have been trained myself! I have never been in any situation where I could not properly explain/show a technique without having to demo it live fire nor have I needed to see someone live fire to figure out what was going on while I was being trained. Some like to demo an entire qualification prior to having a group qualify. I feel like following range commands is just as important so demoing it is not necessary and takes away from being able to evaluate the shooter being able to follow directions via commands.

If you feel for some reason, it is necessary, weigh all of the above and make your own decision. There is no written NRA policy about the demonstration of live fire that I am aware of.

One thing that we do with advanced students is invite them to stay and shoot with us after the class is officially over. At this point, you are no longer acting as an Instructor and would be much less responsible for their supervision and/or safety. You are on a level playing ground and everyone can "show off,""compete," or just have fun in this setting.

We also try to invite all of our students to come shoot with us any time they are in Tallahassee. Just call! Many take us up on it!

Hope this helps clarify. Best, Dawn

PS I have taken several guys to the range of recent that we transferred firearms for that they believed were not properly sighted in or did not shoot well. I always offer to shoot it before they send it back to the seller or try to check out the problem. We do it free of charge. Every time I have done this, I have shot dead on, so it was their shooting NOT the gun. While the problem was resolved, their embarrassment over not shooting well was probably not worth me helping them. I do not offer to do this anymore unless they specifically ask!

Wow, I'm not being mean, but I don't really want anybody with that sort of mindset teaching me or anybody I know/care about. She's either someone who isn't a logical thinker (feelings based) or hasn't done any critical analysis of why they recommend what they recommend.

If you happen to shoot poorly? Should you really be instructing if you aren't capable of shooting well enough to keep from looking bad in front of students.....no matter what the conditions or situations? I don't mean you need to be able to totally wow anybody, any time or place, but at least be able to perform up to an acceptable level on demand.

If you have a squib or a malfunction? You deal with it and it becomes an invaluable lesson for the students; assuming you properly handle the situation (i.e. stop if it's a squib, perform immediate action drills for a malf). When you do handle it properly it should impress the students so that they think "hey, he/she can really do the stuff they're talking about".

She's never been in a situation where she couldn't properly train or learn a technique without a live fire demonstration? It's possible that she's only trained extremely simple, basic techniques because some of the more complex stuff doesn't translate well in words....at least for someone who isn't already experienced in the topic at hand. We can tell someone "I shot a .18 split on that target" and it means something to us. Try to explain that to a student and you'll get a blank stare....they'll know it sounds fast, but have no idea what it should look like. In that case a demo that takes less than a minute will make it perfectly clear (not that you're teaching that at a NRA Basic Pistol course). It could also be that she is an outstanding communicator who does a great job of making people see what she's describing with her words. Not all instructors may be so gifted. Maybe she's had students that really didn't "get it" and would have with a live fire demo, but she never knew it.

Safety? The idea that you (not you personally), as lead instructor, have "complete control" of the range is faulty. You should do your best, but control is an illusion. Even if you're watching someone like a hawk, it's still possible for them to do something that causes an injury or death faster than you can stop it, so you're "control" did nothing. With total newbies we get right in their personal space so that we can prevent them from pointing the gun any direction but down range, but that requires a 1-to-1 ratio of instructor/student....not too likely in an NRA class scenario. Sure, nobody is going to dispute we want a safe environment on the range, and newbies take a little more work to make that happen, but that doesn't mean you can't "turn your back on them". What happens when a student has a problem and you're helping them with no other instructors on the line? Do you stop the line and help that one person? Even if you do, you're still not watching the others and one of them could be doing something unsafe and you won't know it. At that point you're not paying attention to any of the other students, just like if you demo something after making sure all of them have put their guns on the bench or holstered in a safe condition. Regardless, they should have already heard, several times, no handling of guns without being told to do so.

I'll stop with this last one. She's worried that if you do shoot brilliantly you'll discourage students because they'll feel inferior? Why would you take instruction from someone who can't do something better than you can....especially if you're a new, new, new shooter going through NRA Basic Pistol? Shouldn't they pretty much expect that the instructor is going to be better at it? Further, I doubt any of us would bang off a 1.0 draw with a .15 split and say "that's how it's done boys and girls". We'd do a very smooth, controlled, perfect draw to a solid center hit, smooth reset and a second shot after something reasonble like a half second or one second....all controlled, smooth and perfect. We'll tell them it's possible to go much faster and be just as accurate, and if someone asks "how fast can you really do it" we can show them, but maybe at the end so they leave with something to think about and strive for. We can also say "that was about a 2 second first shot with a second shot one second later....total of three seconds for two shots. I can consistently do that in 1.25 seconds and be just as accurate at that distance, but some folks are even faster than that" or something similar.....they'll get the idea since they now have a mental image of what 3 seconds looked like. We'll also remind them that speed isn't the goal, etc, etc so they don't go back and work on wildly blasting away to get to those times with poor accuracy...it's all how you package it and convey it. R,

[Jake Di Vita]

That sums it up pretty well.

[kgunz11]

She's retied USAF and former CIA and knowing her and her abilities, I have no problem getting trained by her.

[G-ManBart]

She's retied USAF and former CIA and knowing her and her abilities, I have no problem getting trained by her.

I was USAF and in charge of all firearms training for my base before I got out. I know what they taught, up until about ten years ago. It's not exactly advanced stuff. The normal USAF member only shoots either once a year or prior to deployments (M16 only)....some folks go years without shooting at all.

I've worked with quite a few CIA folks and their case agents (normal spooks, not their very specialized teams) get very little firearms training. I actually took a recently retired, former NOC guy to the range and he said it was the first time he'd shot a gun in something like 15 years. I went to a school where I had an Agency "mentor". He was a normal case officer (not a NOC or tactical team member) and said they very rarely carried guns, and didn't regularly qualify or practice with them.

In my experience with both of the above, I'm not seeing any reason to consider either as serious shooting credentials. She may have developed her skills in other venues, which is great, but those two aren't the source. Now, if you'd said she was AMU, things would be different.

Even if her skills are outstanding, that mindset would be my concern. Obviously she wouldn't feel comfortable demonstrating because she's voiced a concern that she might embarras herself in front of students. I'll shoot in front of anybody and while I may not impress any/all of them, they're not going to think "this guy can't shoot worth a damn" either. I have a feeling you'd be comfortable doing the same...at least from the perspective of not worrying about how you'll perform. I'm not a national-level, one of X, instructor and I wouldn't hesitate to demonstrate, but she would...that sort of speaks for itself.

[Sarge]

I know this thread has wobbled around a little but I read the first page and wanted to reply regarding the initial question. This may have been covered in page two but I did not get that far.

I think it is quite possible to be a great shooter and not be able to string two sentences together well enough to be an instructor. I know the opposite is true as well.

Back in the day as a Drill Sergeant marksmanship was our bread and butter. We always had the best talker give the instruction and the best shooter doing the demo's. Is this technique used these days on the outside?

I also remember as a DS the top shooters rarely graduated from the best shooting DS' platoon. They just were not as good at instructing basics. Of course, sometimes the trainees just were good shooters to begin with.

On a more recent note. A prominent USPSA shooter came to the local club to give a class. A friend of mine who attended said he did very little shooting. Then his eyes get wider when he says, "But when he did shoot it was just amazing" and any other of a handful of descriptions. But it also did not teach much except that all the students had a long long way to go. It was really just a "WOW" factor thing. It probably did not contribute one way or the other as far as instruction goes. I know it would not have for me.

I understand the OP is talking about different types of instruction but I think it is all connected.

[kgunz11]

Bart, you have to remember, as an NRA TC, her reply has to be NRA acceptable responses. I've shot with her, and I've played edge weapons stuff with her. Her training is very extensive and her response was politically correct in her opinion.

[G-ManBart]

Bart, you have to remember, as an NRA TC, her reply has to be NRA acceptable responses. I've shot with her, and I've played edge weapons stuff with her. Her training is very extensive and her response was politically correct in her opinion.

Well, I never mess with women and edged weapons, so you're braver than I am

I hear you, but sometimes it's hard to differentiate between someone's personal opinion and their organization's stance when they're involved at that level.

Clearly her note to you was her opinion/take on what the NRA is putting out. It certainly was done in a "voice" that suggests her own words and thoughts, on the matter, or on the NRA's position. When someone says "You as the Lead Instructor must have complete control of the range. Turning your back to shoot is simply not safe. If an accident were to occur while you were demonstrating, you would likely be charged with negligence at best. So first and foremost is SAFETY"....I'm not going to bother listening much longer. No lawyer would ever word it that way so there's little chance that comes directly from official channels at the NRA....especially in light of her later comment that you, ultimately, get to decide. So, the NRA may discourage it, without having an official position. If they really felt it was such a terrible idea they'd just say that instructors aren't allowed to do any live fire and leave it at that. They don't, so you're getting someone's opinion and that someone sounds like she'd be hesitant to shoot in front of students for a variety of reasons.

Seriously, there isn't a single point in her entire note that's valid (aside from safety first). Not one of those things is either true (i.e. you can't really "control" the range), or a problem if the instructor knows what they're doing. So, either they don't trust their instructors to do the right thing, or they haven't really analyzed the situation properly....and they should.

Now that I think about it, I think it was in one of Saul Kirsch's videos where he does a very brief demo that illustrates something that you almost can't put into words very well. He had a student that was holding the gun up at the top of the muzzle flip after each shot. He would then lower it and take the next shot. He didn't quite understand what he was doing wrong. Saul took a couple of shots to show the difference between what he was doing compared with letting the gun reset quickly, smoothly, and naturally. That's a slightly more advanced technique, but it may not be above what you'd show someone in a basic class who was shooting well and maybe had some prior experience. That's the sort of stuff that can be invaluable to students...often more than the one experiencing the issue, because the others may find they're doing the same thing at a later time and they'll already know how to fix it. R,

Edited December 19, 2009 by G-ManBart

[Duane Thomas]

So, let me see if I understand the thesis here:

First, she says, "This is not the NRA's position, but this is what you should do anyway." If it's not the NRA's position, it must be her opinion, or why would she be giving it, yes?

Second, we're told "We should pay attention to what this person has to say, she really knows how to shoot and instruct because she was in the Air Force and the CIA." I spent 10 years on active duty in the Army and shot Expert (the highest rank they have) on the M16A1 and Colt 1911 .45 pistol. Does this mean I have the right to have opinions on instruction? No. Actually, given military marksmanship standards, it doesn't even mean I'm a particularly good shooter.

Third, "Well, we should pay attention to her, not because she was in the Air Force and the CIA but because she's had extensive other training." Thanks for mentioning that. Her original opinions still show a person who has no confidence in her own abilities to perform on demand.

Fourth, "You have to remember she was putting forth an NRA-acceptable position....her own opinion may well be different." It may be, it may not be....then why even mention it?

I'm not trying to be nasty, really, but from what I'm hearing, this person's opinion doesn't count for much. Assuming it's actually her opinion. Which it may or may not be. Oy.

[kgunz11]

Duane, since you ask...

I don't know why you're using quotations marks in your post, what you are quoting is your interpretation of what is written, not what I said.

During my NRA Instructor level course, our instructors were very firm that we should not do any live fire demonstrations. In NRA Basic Pistol, I really don't see a need for it. It is their duty to turn out the best NRA Instructors possible, and in an effort to do this, they provide the curriculum that they do. Right or wrong, it's how they do it.

You do it how you want to. I think she has solid reasons why they do not do it. In her opinion, there are many reasons why not to, and not one single reason why it should be done. During my class, we had 2 guys from Louisiana that were security guards. As a job requirement, they needed the class. One of them was stuck on the tea cup grip method. He shot poorly, in part because of this. It was possible for her to demonstrate better grip techniques without firing a single round. His shooting improved.

As for your second thought, I never told anyone to pay attention to her or what she says. I only listed her credentials as a base line for her qualifications as an instructor. She and her partner are 2 of the most regarded TC's in the country, not only by me, but by many in the industry. You do it how you want to. I stand corrected that NRA Instructors should not do live fire demo's in a class as stipulated by the NRA. I only relayed what I was taught. Up until writing her to find a place where it was written, I never knew it wasn't. The way they teach, you would ASS U ME it was.

You feel the need to do live fire demonstrations, go for it. You don't need my blessing as I don't need that of anyone else. When I teach self defense classes with handguns there are live fire demo's of the drills. With edged weapons we use Karambit trainers. There is only so much instruction you can do without some sort of visual demonstration, but it is more of a kinesthetic based learning skill.

I hear you, but sometimes it's hard to differentiate between someone's personal opinion and their organization's stance when they're involved at that level.

I am the victim of that. At the level this pair is within the NRA, their instruction went without question.

Edited December 20, 2009 by kgunz11

[38supPat]

If making an error and looking bad in front of your students sounds like a valid arguement, you should not be instructing because you just do not have a proper grasp of the material you are teaching.

[Duane Thomas]

Bobby, I'm glad to hear that you demo during your firearms instruction. My own instructors never demoed during my NRA instructor class, and I could not help but think poorly of them for that. It does sadden me that NRA-taught pistol technique seems to have calcified somewhere around state-of-the-art 1959. Though when I went through, the instructional material actually did acknowledge that such a thing as an isoscles stance does exist, in addition to the Weaver stance. This is cutting-edge stuff.

[kgunz11]

Second, lets say you have multiple Instructors helping with a class so you are safely able to demonstrate live fire. You demonstrate a shooting technique and you happen to shoot poorly for whatever reason, have a squib load, or misfire, the students would then lose confidence in your ability to properly instruct and would likely worry they too will have a malfunction. On the other hand, let's say you shoot brilliantly, the students may then think you are "showing off" or " may feel inferior" to any shooting they are able to do. Either way, you have nothing to gain and only much to lose.

I think we are all capable of having less than stellar range days. That's her point, nothing more nothing less. No one can invariably control everything. They do preventative maintenance. Both are accomplished shooters, with handgun and rifle, and I've shot with them both.

An example, I was the most knowledgeable student in the class in regards to hand loading and long range rifle shooting. During classroom breaks, there were lots of discussion about long range shooting as most of the class and the instructors were interested. So in essence, we chatted a bit about the type of shooting I like to do and what kind of rifles I shoot, including the accuracy potential of those rifle. Upon the completion of the live fire qualifications, we were allowed to do a little shooting on one of their many personal/private ranges. I was asked if I would break out some of my rifles to shoot. The lead instructor was also a long range shooter (high master) and wanted to check out the guns. Some of the folks in the class might have been calling me out, I don't know, but they wanted to see what the guns could do. I brought enough ammo to share with everyone. I got down behind one of my rifles in the prone position and fired a 5 shot group at 100 yards with a cold foul barrel. I guess if my performance would have sucked, everyone witnessing would have questioned my general skill level with a long gun (which is why the instructors do not advocate live fire demos). For people that don't know me or the groups in which I travel, I'm sure some of my claims might have sounded a little outlandish. I didn't feel any pressure to perform, I knew what my rifle, load, and myself are capable of doing on command. Below is the 5 shot group shot. Again, cold foul bore, cold shooter. Distance 100 yards.

[Duane Thomas]

Let that be a lesson to you: THIS is what happens when you live fire demo in front of a class.

[Duane Thomas]

I think we are all capable of having less than stellar range days. That's her point, nothing more nothing less. No one can invariably control everything.

True. But even at our worst we should still be able to turn in a competent performance that illustrates the concept being taught. To rob students of that because of, "What if you shoot poorly, you'll lose the class's respect," is a non-argument, as far as I'm concerned. I won't shoot poorly. Perhaps I might shoot "poorly" by my standards, but certainly not by theirs.

[kgunz11]

Bobby, I'm glad to hear that you demo during your firearms instruction. My own instructors never demoed during my NRA instructor class, and I could not help but think poorly of them for that. It does sadden me that NRA-taught pistol technique seems to have calcified somewhere around state-of-the-art 1959. Though when I went through, the instructional material actually did acknowledge that such a thing as an isoscles stance does exist, in addition to the Weaver stance. This is cutting-edge stuff.

Duane, I didn't think less of them, but hearing about this pair, often called Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I was curious as to their abilities. I'll also confess to butting heads with Dawn in the class about the Weaver stance, telling her I thought it had very little practical purpose. She said according to the curriculum, we still had to teach it. I was Blackwater trained before ever attending this class, so as far as combat handgun, I've leaned from some BTDT folks. The whole reason I shoot USPSA is to be a better, more rounded/versatile marksman with the handgun. I love it by the way.

I offer 9 hours of free defensive handgun training to any of the locals that purchase a gun from us. I've been breaking that up into 3-3 hour classes. That way, they get to take home what they learned that day and ponder on it and come up with questions, if they have any, for the next class. To see where these people come from in their 1st lesson to what they are capable of by the 3rd lesson, I must be doing something right. I also instruct them here in the shop on how to SAFELY disassemble their new gun for cleaning and maintenance purposes. My NRA certification gives me credability, the information I teach in the classes give me merit. I'm still growing as an instructor as well. An epiphany I had in a recent class involved a woman that wanted to lean back into her stance every time we went hot. For dry fire, she'd do fine, but load the gun up and let her aim and she rocked back on her heels. During that class, I came up with an analogy that really helps me illustrate to folks who can't replicate something by seeing it. I told her to take a batters stance looking to her left, knees slightly bent, weight forward just a little, hands clutched together. She assumed the perfect fighting stance without missing a beat that way. I then stood in front of her, told her to look at me, and extend her clutched hands outward towards me. From that point on, she was spot on every time. She immediately started outshooting the men in the class. Now, it's incorporated in my instruction on stance.

[kgunz11]

Let that be a lesson to you: THIS is what happens when you live fire demo in front of a class.

Thanks! That use to be my "go to" .308 rifle before the SRS came along. According to the calipers, that group measures 0.407". In my experience, a .308 bullet actually tears a 0.290" hole in card stock. That would make that group 0.117" at 100 yards or 1/10th minute of angle. The rifle really is accurate, but I'm only a .5MOA shooter consistently. Being able to shoot tiny little groups at 100 yards isn't that hard if you know the basic fundamentals of marksmanship and have a good rifle/load combo. As soon as hunting season is over I'm going to put up my 1760 yard berm and I'll post pics of the target at 1 mile. That would be a good indication of my overall long range wind reading ability. Every little thing is magnified at distance. If I'm going to teach people to shoot long range, I need to be able to perform to get/hold their attention, so yes, I WILL be shooting a live fire demo.

[G-ManBart]

Second, lets say you have multiple Instructors helping with a class so you are safely able to demonstrate live fire. You demonstrate a shooting technique and you happen to shoot poorly for whatever reason, have a squib load, or misfire, the students would then lose confidence in your ability to properly instruct and would likely worry they too will have a malfunction. On the other hand, let's say you shoot brilliantly, the students may then think you are "showing off" or " may feel inferior" to any shooting they are able to do. Either way, you have nothing to gain and only much to lose.

I think we are all capable of having less than stellar range days. That's her point, nothing more nothing less. No one can invariably control everything. They do preventative maintenance. Both are accomplished shooters, with handgun and rifle, and I've shot with them both.

Honestly, I still don't buy it and they shouldn't try to sell it I don't care if I'm sick, hung over, had no sleep in two days, the lighting is bad, I'm using a borrowed gun that I can't stand and I'm wearing shorts one size too tight; I'm going to be able to shoot well enough to do a solid demonstration of anything you could ever remotely wind up covering in a basic or mid-level pistol course.

Sure, it's possible you could have some totally crazy mechanical failure of the gun, but how often do those sorts of things happen really?

An example, I was the most knowledgeable student in the class in regards to hand loading and long range rifle shooting. During classroom breaks, there were lots of discussion about long range shooting as most of the class and the instructors were interested. So in essence, we chatted a bit about the type of shooting I like to do and what kind of rifles I shoot, including the accuracy potential of those rifle. Upon the completion of the live fire qualifications, we were allowed to do a little shooting on one of their many personal/private ranges. I was asked if I would break out some of my rifles to shoot. The lead instructor was also a long range shooter (high master) and wanted to check out the guns. Some of the folks in the class might have been calling me out, I don't know, but they wanted to see what the guns could do. I brought enough ammo to share with everyone. I got down behind one of my rifles in the prone position and fired a 5 shot group at 100 yards with a cold foul barrel. I guess if my performance would have sucked, everyone witnessing would have questioned my general skill level with a long gun (which is why the instructors do not advocate live fire demos). For people that don't know me or the groups in which I travel, I'm sure some of my claims might have sounded a little outlandish. I didn't feel any pressure to perform, I knew what my rifle, load, and myself are capable of doing on command. Below is the 5 shot group shot. Again, cold foul bore, cold shooter. Distance 100 yards.

Bobby, that's a fine group and it actually points out something important. You KNEW you were capable of doing that and while you may have thought "okay, don't screw up", but I'll bet you were sure that even if you screwed up a little (for you) it would still be good enough to either impress them or at least not make them think you were a poser. You had the ability and weren't afraid to demonstrate it, so you did. I don't think we can quite make a direct comparison between demonstrating pistol techniques and trying to shoot a quarter inch (or less from the looks of it) group at 100yds, but the idea isn't totally different.

I'm not getting the sense that the folks we're talking about above have that level of confidence, and that's concerning. R,

[kgunz11]

It's not that Bart, I don't think.

Analogy, you drink and drive you may or may not get a ticket or have an accident. You've done it 1000's of times. You KNOW you can get home ok. On your drive a deer runs out in front of you, you have an accident. It was an accident you would have had without even smelling a scotch. The fact remains you are now in an accident and there is a chance that alcohol could become a factor if tested. You KNOW you were fine to drive, but $H!T happens right?

Their stance is, if you don't drive, there is no possible way you can look like an ass and lose ANY credability. Make better sense now? And BTW, the only reason I am defending their position on this is I have a hard time putting into words why they feel as they do, which they have been able to communicate to me in person.