Instructors limiting gear/equipment choices??

[BehindBlueI's]

I explained myself poorly as usual. Although I made the decision many months ago a recent thread I read on here led me to post. The incident where the lady shot the guy grappling with the conservation officer reaffirmed my decision in my mind. Although I applaud her for coming to the Officer's aid and am very glad it turned out the way it did I have great reservations when thinking of myself, or many others, in that situation. Shooting a bad guy who is in close physical proximity with a good guy is a daunting proposition. I wasn't there and don't know the exact situation but I know I would be extremely reluctant to make that shot. What if things turned out differently? What if, despite her best intentions, the wrong person was shot? Would she still be getting the support she is receiving today? Am I confident enough in my skill set to make that shot? There is nothing I would like better than to come to the aid of an Officer in need. But I'm not sure I could have taken that shot.

Having a gun gives you options. It doesn't mandate a specific course of action.

 

[2A_Tom]

Allowing given equipment into a defensive pistol class means that you are agreeing it is good enough for the class and if it is good enough for the class it is good enough for defensive purposes. Since that is what the class is designed to address.

That is the way I see it. I would think it is a reasonable and logical interpretation.

Who has better outcomes, trained people with a .380 or untrained with a 9mm? Would you allow a Hi-point .40?

Is the point to "win" the class? Or to better prepare for survival? Did your policy accomplish that for the woman who was otherwise willing to train?

Calm down guys, I want to see cheery faces on the two of you Saturday.

 

[cedartop]

Calm down guys, I want to see cheery faces on the two of you Saturday.

A cheery face on Coach? Maybe ask for world peace while you are at it.


That does bring up a point that often gets lost. We can disagree on a lot of things without either person being wrong.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Calm down guys, I want to see cheery faces on the two of you Saturday.

Meh, isn't the first thing we disagree on. Coach is more hardware-centric than I am. We can still [strike]spoon[/strike] work together with no problem.

 

[OneBadV8]

I just always agree with whatever Rhino says

 

[rhino]

I just always agree with whatever Rhino says

Clearly you are an exceptionally erudite and perceptive individual.

 

[Dead Duck]

Calm down guys, I want to see cheery faces on the two of you Saturday.

Then donuts and bourbon it is.

 

[Lars]

My take is like this:

If an instructor clearly lays out required, optional, and prohibited equipment for a class. It's your job as the student to meet those requirements.

If an instructor sees your equipment, and it's either unsafe, or causing the class to be held up because of you, the instructor should either offer alternative loaner equipment to the student. If that's not possible, I think the instructor might be in the right to send the student away as ALL of the student's are affected by one's poor/ineffective equipment choices.

I think if a student has some sights the instructor doesn't like, and the student is struggling it's totally ok for the instructor to point it out to the student and make suggestions, which is a large part of why you're paying him/her in the first place. If the student opts to change things out in the middle of the class, I don't see a problem with that. But if that student was forced to change sights, against his will.... That's the only thing I'd have a problem with on this particular topic.

 

[2A_Tom]

I like this one.

[video=youtube;wucGuLhF6X0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wucGuLhF6X0[/video]

 

[Lars]

I like this one.

That's a good example of what I was talking about when I said....

"If an instructor sees your equipment, and it's either unsafe, or causing the class to be held up because of you, the instructor should either offer alternative loaner equipment to the student. If that's not possible, I think the instructor might be in the right to send the student away as ALL of the student's are affected by one's poor/ineffective equipment choices."

 

[2A_Tom]

That's a good example of what I was talking about when I said....

"If an instructor sees your equipment, and it's either unsafe, or causing the class to be held up because of you, the instructor should either offer alternative loaner equipment to the student. If that's not possible, I think the instructor might be in the right to send the student away as ALL of the student's are affected by one's poor/ineffective equipment choices."

That's kinda why I posted it.

 

[rhino]

Whatever Clint Smith does or says is correct, pretty much by definition!

 

[Randy Harris]

At least Larry didn't haul out his tactical folder and cut the Hogue Handall grip off someone's Glock like someone else famously did in a class.....

As to not allowing certain things , I've seen Tom Givens "bench" a shooter because he showed up with a flimsy Uncle Mikes IWB holster that collapsed every time the gun was drawn and so then you had to use the gun muzzle to pry it back open when reholstering. That was a SAFETY ISSUE. Not a "gear snobbery" kind of thing but a straight up safety issue. I've seen people (more than one) shoot them selves with airsoft guns drawing them from Serpa holsters under stress. If it had been live fire they'd have been shot for real. It is a SAFETY ISSUE. Horizontal shoulder holster? Safety issue. And even more insidious is the plate carrier horizontal mounted Serpa with a glock in it. SAFETY ISSUE. AIWB holster and chest rig in rifle class? Safety issue. If the gun does not come out of the holster because it is blocked by all your pouches then pulling harder with your finger now on the trigger leads to a ride to the hospital....SAFETY ISSUE.

Now the big dot sights are far from ideal on targets at distance or small or obscured close targets, but at least they are not a legit safety issue. But keep in mind that the instructor is not just standing there reciting the info from the syllabus. We are also coach, manager, risk assessor, and the ultimate responsibility for a safe environment (which includes the gear people bring to class) rest on our shoulders.

 

[Coach]

You are such tease.

 

[JBishop]

It's hard to make a lot of suppositions without knowing all the details of the OP's friend and his situation during class.

One of the points I've really keyed in on, and then subsequently observed first hand several times, is a paradox of a student who volunteers/pays money to attend a class, then wants to resist the material they showed up to receive.

WHY ON EARTH would you pay several hundred (upwards of a thousand for a travel class) to argue the merits of what you already believe?!? In the OP's post, it may have been that the material that Vickers was attempting to convey was difficult to achieve with the Big Dots. Sounded like Vickers then had a discussion during a break that convinced that shooter to try the swap to better absorb class material (Getting what the student had paid for!). We don't have the benefit of the exact details of how this transpired, nor whether the change made things better/worse, therefore it's hard to be judgemental on one side or the other.

Unfortunately there have been instructors who plaster themselves all over Youtube/Forums/Etc that tout the Big Dots as the second coming.... They end up with such a cult following that anyone that contradicts their expertise is a heretic.

We never really got an answer if Vickers' change improved the reception of class material/improved the shooter's skills/results. The way it was presented/received at first was on par with a fart in church.

 

[Jackson]

The incident where the lady shot the guy grappling with the conservation officer reaffirmed my decision in my mind. Although I applaud her for coming to the Officer's aid and am very glad it turned out the way it did I have great reservations when thinking of myself, or many others, in that situation. Shooting a bad guy who is in close physical proximity with a good guy is a daunting proposition. I wasn't there and don't know the exact situation but I know I would be extremely reluctant to make that shot. What if things turned out differently? What if, despite her best intentions, the wrong person was shot? Would she still be getting the support she is receiving today? Am I confident enough in my skill set to make that shot? There is nothing I would like better than to come to the aid of an Officer in need. But I'm not sure I could have taken that shot.

There are some methods to make this less risky. One method taught by TDI in Ohio is to attach yourself to the grapple so you're moving with them and movement relative to them is minimized, then make the shot at contact or from a retention index. I know this is off topic but I thought I'd share.

 

[2A_Tom]

There are some methods to make this less risky. One method taught by TDI in Ohio is to attach yourself to the grapple so you're moving with them and movement relative to them is minimized, then make the shot at contact or from a retention index. I know this is off topic but I thought I'd share.

Every little bit helps.

 

[Tsssst]

It warmed my heart to see lyrics from Loser by the Grateful Dead in your signature, McGrease.

 

[MCgrease08]

It warmed my heart to see lyrics from Loser by the Grateful Dead in your signature, McGrease.

 

[Vigilant]

At least Larry didn't haul out his tactical folder and cut the Hogue Handall grip off someone's Glock like someone else famously did in a class.....

Do Tell, I’ve missed that one? I’ve seen Pat Rogers bench a guy with a POS AR, (loaner rifles were all taken), I’ve loaned my backup AR out several times, as well as G19’s to guys that had Xd’s that went **** up, and even once to a 1911 shooter.