Former Team members opened a range in my area and recently started offering tactical pistol courses. I took the first offering of what they call Tactical Pistol 1. It is the second in a multi-course program that begins with a Fundamentals course where students learn the basics of the draw, loading and unloading. TP 1 is focussed on drawing and reloads, with most drills and testing done at 5 yards. We also worked on shooting on the move (forward, backwards, lateral).
They want the courses to be challenging, and they tailor some of the drills to each student based on that student’s skill. Tactical Pistol 1 is set up on a pass/fail system based primarily on timed drills at the end of the three hour course. None of the students in my class had passing scores, and since they are using me largely as a barometer, they are considering changes to the course and requirements. The following is a list of the test standards and my scores. Please share your opinion on the appropriateness of these drills and if you think the standard is reasonable compared to other level 1 courses you have taken.
All tests done from 5 yards, two attempts at each drill, and one clean run is required (no misses).
Draw from holster and hit a 4" dot in less than 2.0 seconds. I scored 1.65 seconds.
Draw, fire one shot, emergency reload from slidelock, one more shot on 4" dot in less than 5 seconds. I scored 4.6 seconds.
Draw and fire a controlled pair of shots at a 4" circle in less than 2.5 seconds. I scored 2.1 seconds.
Draw and fire 16 shots on a 8" circle in less than 12 seconds. An emergency reload from slidelock is required somewhere in the string. I scored 9.9 seconds with one miss, then 12.3 seconds with no misses. Epic fail.
El Presidente-style drill. Draw from holster, back to targets with 180 degree spin & draw, emergency reload from slidelock after 6 shots, in less than 12 seconds. Three targets, three feet apart, all hits have to be in A zone (roughly 6" x 8"). I scored 9.8 seconds with one miss, then 11.6 clean.
So, are these parameters reasonable for a level 1 class, or do you think its more suited to a level 2 tactical pistol course?
Edit: The course has been restructured, and I’ve posted an AAR/Course Review in the “Misc Training Course Announcements & AAR” forum of M4c. Thank you to all who shared their opinions in this thread.
Figuring out what’s reasonable would require drill validation by shooters of various abilities. From what you’ve listed, the only common drill is El Pres, but it has been validated at 10 yards and requires a reload after first six. To me it seems that all of your benchmarks are too high for an entry-level class. I consider myself a solid intermediate, and from what I can gather, I may have hard time meeting those. I don’t shoot at 5 yards though, my closest distance is 7 so who knows…
My general experience that instructors with prior experience of their own have a good understanding what performance to expect on their drills from shooters of different skill levels.
My thoughts as well, YVK. This was the first offering of the course and it is still in the development phase. The primary instructor has vast experience training the elite, but less experience with civilians.
Since they will be getting everyone from Civy’s to LE to Mil, I think that the standards are to high (especially since there isn’t a "pre-tac pistol 1 class) for the students to grow with.
For me, basic pistol classes should spend the MAJORITY of the time on trigger manipulation (as this is the hardest thing to master). Spend time showing the students that they do have a flinch and then show them how to get rid of it.
Then show them sight alignment, stance, grip, etc. These things alone will occupy two days for certain.
I think it is good to run competitions (adds stress), but I don’t know that I would fail anyone (as they are just learning to shoot).
YMMV
Edit to add, I just read their website. When I teach NEW shooters (which is all I deal with), I pick one element (like reloads or malfunction clearing) and spend about 2 hours on that one specific skill set. Then, when I see that student again next month, I hit what we just covered to make sure that they practiced it on their own and are still doing it correctly.
For me, spending 3-4 hours and covering a bunch of different skill sets and then expecting the student to be able to pass a test for each thing learned is nearly impossible (assuming that they have no prior training).
No one who doesn’t have some prior experience is going to come close to those after just three hours of instruction. Ask the guys teaching this how long it took them to get that level. If they say “three hours,” well . . .
After three hours, if someone can safely draw and actually hit the center of the target (consistently), then safely reholster, I’d be happy. Putting a time limit on brand new shooters (which they still are after 3 hours) is not a great idea.
I would agree, those standards are not Level 1 standards, they are way too demanding. They are intermediate to advanced standards.
I wouldn’t usually judge a company or their guys by their website unless it’s blatantly ridiculous. Their site seems ok except I find it a bit busy.
If these guys are local wait until you meet someone who has taken one of their classes and ask how it was. Also talk to them and get a feel. You’d be surprised how much you can learn by just listening to some guys talk and the way they carry themselves.
I can’t confirm their creds, but I can attest that the training I received was also legit. Spectacular, in fact. I just thought the testing standards were a little high. They’ve since informed me that they are re-structuring the course to two days and will have a tiered system for final testing. They’ve invited my class back to run the course free of charge. I will be there will bells on and my P30ls. Class act, imo.
These guys are new to the scene and took over a range that was horribly stigmatized by the prior ownership. They are still learning the ropes of running a civi range and curriculum, so I’m cutting them some slack on their website and hard-sell marketing efforts.
Pass/Fail to what end? You aren’t working toward a certification unless your employing agency is sending you there as part of required ongoing training to maintain a certification or license.
If it is Joe Blow Citizen, like me, I’m not sure the pass/fail component would hold much water. I know I could do better, which is why I would be at the class. I’d rather learn and have them give me particular skills to work on that I could practice at home or on the range. The benchmarks you listed would be hard for me to reach; giving them to me as a standard to work towards is much more helpful. Telling me I failed doesn’t really tell me much; however, telling me what goals and standards of proficiency I should be able to reach by the next class, well, now I have a realistic view of my skills and where I need to be. That seems more reasonable.
I once worked (shortly) with a training company that was looking into implementing a pass/fail system. I told him somewhat the same thing SMC said. It does nothing for the student not with a company.
But then again that ass clown I was working with was more worried about looking like he was running a BUDS course than true weapons training. Needless to say I was gone pretty quickly.
Great to hear that more good people are offering courses and I hope it works well for them. I am sure that running a civilian range has many of its own challenges that I would not be completely familiar with either.
When I hear Tactical Pistol 1, I am guessing that they have basic pistol courses, or are they only addressing experienced shooters? I am also guessing that you must pass the Tactical Pistol 1 standard to be able to move on to Tactical Pistol 2?
Even for experienced shooters moving on to tactical based or combat based shooting 3 hours is definitely not long enough. Also as has been described I would consider the standards to be to difficult for what I would consider the completion of even a one day (8 hour) Tactical Pistol 1 course. Even a couple of days (24 hours) these standards would still be pushing it. As mentioned we are talking people who may have only recently progressing into being an intermediate shooter.
Again good to see them handling business and trying to work things out!
I agree, and my feedback to the instructor echoed these points. The level of instruction was superb, and I left with lots of things to work on. It appears that the course will no longer be pass/fail, but will classify graduates based on times. The standards listed in the original post will be for advanced status. They are trying to implement a ranking system to classify students and allow bragging rights for those who finish at the top level. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
I think their original vision was a pass/fail system where shooters strive to complete Level II for serious bragging rights. I’m not sure how that would fly with civilians who are used to getting a trophy just for showing up. It appears that that idea has been shelved, and I applaud them for their flexibility. They really are a great group, and I thoroughly enjoyed the course. Watching these guys run through drills at full tilt is a real eye opener compared to the typical NRA instructor.
