What Is Proficiency?

[Jackson]

I was perusing Limatune's Range Diary which is the blog of a woman who runs pistol classes and takes a bit of training at big name schools. She posted this article on her definition of proficiency which I thought was interesting.

Limatunes' Range Diary: What Is Proficiency

I like that she breaks it up in to gun handling and marksmanship. I also make that distinction when I am talking about gun skills. We've discussed similar topics here but I think its interesting. What is your definition of proficient? How good is "good"?

I am fairly certain we have some fairly wide variations in focus and skill level on the board. I've met some of our competitive members who have a very high standard for speed and accuracy. I've met others who get to a baseline level of shooting ability then focus on other skill sets. I've also met plenty who seem to have a lower standard across the board. So, what is good enough? Good enough for what? And how do you know when you're there?

 

[cedartop]

I too like the way she breaks it down. I have seen a lot of very good range shooters who are awful at gunhandling. Sometimes it is because of their range rules. One thing I will say about competition, it seems to help in both of these aspects.

She also makes some very good points in the last 3 or 4 paragraphs. As for measuring proficiency, there will be a lot of argument as most of us will have different standards.

"And how do you know when you are there?" For me, I don't see ever arriving.

 

[VERT]

Well thought out article. I will make this comment. It would surprise some to know the number of people who would not pass the basic level of proficiency that was laid out. Interestingly enough some of those would classify themselves as experienced shooters. I am guilty myself. When I returned to shooting several years ago my shooting was good but my gun handling was horrible.

 

[Jackson]

You have both been to the Rangemaster instructor class. The author of that article has been as well. She mentions it in this artiicle:
Limatunes' Range Diary: Own Your Skill Level

She also writes that the Rangemaster instructors said only a few in the class had a solid grasp of the fundamentals. Did your class receive any similar evaluation by the instructors, and if so, what was the verdict?

 

[VERT]

These are some very well written thoughts.

As far as feedback during RangeMaster. Yes I received coaching from the in house instructors. They seemed to want people to do it faster or more accurately. Several were giving me tips as we went. I took it all in, that is why I was there. I remember Tom Givens advising the class to do dry practice that evening because not everyone was drawing fast enough. There were differences in the skill levels of the participants. Some people accepted coaching better then others. We were told it was not uncommon for people to not make it through the course.

 

[cedartop]

Her take on the Rangemaster class seems pretty spot on. I didn't get any complaints on my fundamentals, but I was encouraged to get my first shot on target faster. Since this was an area I already knew I wanted to improve, I was all ears.

I really liked the following from her article;

It's easy to convince yourself that you are "good enough" or above criticism. It's also easy to defeat yourself when your errors are pointed out to you. It's harder to own your skill level for everything it is and for everything it isn't and accept the criticism of others to your own improvement.

At the same time, you have to be careful of where you get your criticism from.

I don't accept the criticism of people on the internet who I don't know to be an authority on the subject. I put myself out there and so I get a lot of criticism. The anonymous jerk who goes off about how stupid I am and tries to list all of the things I'm doing wrong doesn't make me bat an eyelash.

I also won't allow people to tell me I'm no good. Not even myself. I know I'm good. I have no doubt that, if shooting were necessary, I would be a formidable opponent. I know I can pick up any handgun and operate it to a basic standard. I will not allow some arm-chair commando tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

But I also will not allow myself to think I'm above instruction. I have areas where I need to improve. I have a higher standard for myself and when I reach my next shooting goals I'm going to reach higher.

And if one of the instructors I know well and respect wants to critique me I am all ears. Every new instructor I train under or who reaches out to me to critique me will get my full attention. They are trying to help me. They are trying to help me improve.

I choose to improve.

What's your choice?

 

[cedartop]

Forgot to mention in the last post going back to Jackson's question about the Rangemaster class. From what I saw, the thing more people had problems with than any other was the oral presentation. There were some terrified looking people getting up there. IIRC public speaking is one of the biggest fears among adults. Not all of the people in this class were already instructors so I can see where this could have been an issue.

 

[Coach]

Forgot to mention in the last post going back to Jackson's question about the Rangemaster class. From what I saw, the thing more people had problems with than any other was the oral presentation. There were some terrified looking people getting up there. IIRC public speaking is one of the biggest fears among adults. Not all of the people in this class were already instructors so I can see where this could have been an issue.

Public speaking kicks a lot of people's ass. I force my kids to do it each semester at school, and many of them hate. But all of us will stand before a judge, have to deliver a eulogy, interview for a high stakes job, speak to a group on behalf of our kids or any number of other pressure situations and it is a skill that needs mastered.

 

[Coach]

I will also say that I don't think it is possible to proficient with firearms and be lacking in either gun handling or accuracy. To me proficient means I am safe, sure, confident and can deliver the shot on target. As far as giving some other quantifiable stat to say you are there I will have to think on that. I also believe we can all get faster and we can all get more accurate.

 

[ModernGunner]

Good article on range (not combat, as was noted) proficiency.

My personal objective and 'coined' phrase - CITP (Constant Improvement Toward Perfection)

 

[rhino]

I will also say that I don't think it is possible to proficient with firearms and be lacking in either gun handling or accuracy. To me proficient means I am safe, sure, confident and can deliver the shot on target. As far as giving some other quantifiable stat to say you are there I will have to think on that. I also believe we can all get faster and we can all get more accurate.

That's a good point. Some people are proficient at a modest pace that is comfortable for them, or when not under stress. Increase the pace or add some external stress and the skimmer begins to leak.

 

[Jenn]

This is a great thread for beginners (myself included)

I subscribed to thread to see what info others have to offer on this.

 

[Bfish]

I like the article too... I like how she broke somethings down. Its shocking how many people think there are proficient or "good to go" based on shooting but put zero thought into handling, or the whole other side of the coin. This is almost more important. You see many great shooters who may be poor handlers but you don't really see great handlers who are poor shooters (within defense reasons not bullseye shooters here).

 

[sipherblitz]

a lot of people will say that if you can put all your rounds on a sillouette at 7 yards, you're "proficient". and that might be fine, if the target is moving, shooting back, and scaring the crap out of you. true combat stress is almost impossible to replicate, but if you're skills go to pot with the slightest amount of stress, you're not good enough. Keep training!

 

[Fourtrax]

I liked her article, I think, if I'm hearing Coach correctly, I agree with him though. I wouldn't break it down Into separate skills. I believe proficiency in firearm use is all inclusive. I am proficient in Open class. I think I have been since I was a mid C class shooter.

Proficiency is is difficult because it means something different depending on the company you keep.

I recently worked the USPSA booth at the NRA Convention. At one point, we had so many big names hanging out, that I felt I hadn't learned crap in ten years. It was awesome and humbling at the same time.

Proficiency depends on the defined standard. The defined standard changes as we gain proficiency.

 

[Coach]

a lot of people will say that if you can put all your rounds on a sillouette at 7 yards, you're "proficient". and that might be fine, if the target is moving, shooting back, and scaring the crap out of you. true combat stress is almost impossible to replicate, but if you're skills go to pot with the slightest amount of stress, you're not good enough. Keep training!

Skills are one thing and I took that to be what this thread was about. You are making me go another direction. You are talking about being a warrior. Those who are proficient are not necessarily a warrior who can handle combat. Many folks have the gun skills but don't have the sack for a fight. Many more don't know if they have it or not. There is also the problem of plenty of sack but no skills.

 

[Jackson]

I think the article is about pure shooting and gun handling skills. She stresses that she is talking about a pretty basic level of proficiency. This is also what I had in mind when I posted the thread. Staying cool under pressure and being a capable fighter are a different set of skills. In my opinion, it is unrelated to being proficient with a firearm.

I just read through her article again and I would say my bar for considering someone "proficient" is a little higher than hers. To me, a proficient shooter is getting to the level where doing all of the things she mentions is becoming somewhat automatic. That's one aspect she didn't mention and I think is important.

Its one thing to say a shooter is proficient when they are standing dead still and concentrating on each task. This is usually where a student is at when leaving a basic pistol course as she discussed. Its another level when they can think about and do other things and the gun handling and marksmanship come without too much concentration. Skill levels are clearly a continuum and not a set of discrete steps. When a shooter progresses far enough to do it competently without concentrating is what I'd call proficiency.

 

[Sticky]

My idea of proficient is knowing "when" and "how"; and training yourself to be "aware". I kinda' like the 5x5 drill as a basic standard of proficiency for the "how".